Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

Sliding-window beats linear attention

Alexia Jolicoeur-Martineau, Rhea Sanjay Sukthanker, Pashmina Cameron, Emy GervaisPublished Aug 28, 2026
arXiv PDF
Researcher verdict
Context only
Use as context only
Benchmark evidence
Thin evidence
Verify before relying
Time to first repro
A few days
Plan setup time
Risk flags
2
Review before use

Abstract

Domain fit: AI-core · Core AI workload signals detected from paper context and implementation/artifact evidence.

Due to the nature of quadratic attention, Large Language Models (LLMs) consume a lot of memory and energy. Every new token costs more than the previous one. For each additional token, the keys and values must be stored in memory indefinitely, which is unsustainable. Several alternatives have been proposed to fix the quadratic scaling problem, one of which is retrofitting LLMs to use Linear Attention. This idea has attracted a lot of attention, given its promise to solve the quadratic scaling problem with state-of-the-art performance at low cost. However, this line of research has not been properly compared to simpler baselines. In this work, we show that Sliding Window Attention (SWA) with sinks performs as well or better than post-trained Linear Attention models. We observe this across multiple LLMs on various downstream tasks. For long-context reasoning tasks (Needle-in-a-Haystack and BABILong), SWA achieves massively higher performance (2 to 10 times higher than linear attention). SWA requires no post-training, is extremely fast, and requires low memory; therefore, making it an extremely cheap and reliable solution. To reduce inference memory cost, we strongly recommend switching to SWA instead of post-training linear models. Linear attention models may have shown some promise, but they likely require to be trained from scratch or extensive post-training in order to even match SWA.

Results and benchmarks

Freshness tier: hot
Due to the nature of quadratic attention, Large Language Models (LLMs) consume a lot of memory and energy.
Task Dataset Metric Value Source
Transformer HumanEval EM 0 paper-derived

Audit each benchmark finding before selecting an implementation path. Evidence refs map to the disclosure below.

Implementation

No direct implementation yet

Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.

Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.

Implementation evidence summary
Confidence: low

Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.

Reproduction risks
  • Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow

Reproduction readiness

Time to first repro: days
Last checked: Oct 28, 2026

No repo

No verified implementation available

  • No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.

Hardware requirements

  • Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.

Framework baselines

Repositories and ecosystem

No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.

Hugging Face artifacts

No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.

Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.

Research context

Tasks

Transformer

Methods

Transformer

Domains

Natural Language Processing

Evaluation and human feedback data

Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.

Open in HFEPX
Explore similar papers

Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.