Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2402.07443

The I/O Complexity of Attention, or How Optimal is Flash Attention?

Barna Saha·Christopher Ye
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Self-attention is at the heart of the popular Transformer architecture, yet suffers from quadratic time and memory complexity. The breakthrough FlashAttention algorithm revealed I/O complexity as the true bottleneck in scaling Transformers. Given two levels of memory hierarchy, a fast cache (e.g. GPU on-chip SRAM) and a slow memory (e.g. GPU high-bandwidth memory), the I/O complexity measures the number of accesses to memory. FlashAttention computes attention using $\frac{N^2d^2}{M}$ I/O operations where $N$ is the dimension of the attention matrix, $d$ the head-dimension and $M$ the cache size. However, is this I/O complexity optimal? The known lower bound only rules out an I/O complexity of $o(Nd)$ when $M=\Theta(Nd)$, since the output that needs to be written to slow memory is $\Omega(Nd)$. This leads to the main question of our work: Is FlashAttention I/O optimal for all values of $M$? We resolve the above question in its full generality by showing an I/O complexity lower bound that matches the upper bound provided by FlashAttention for any values of $M \geq d^2$ within any constant factors. Further, we give a better algorithm with lower I/O complexity for $M < d^2$, and show that it is optimal as well. Moreover, our lower bounds do not rely on using combinatorial matrix multiplication for computing the attention matrix. We show even if one uses fast matrix multiplication, the above I/O complexity bounds cannot be improved. We do so by introducing a new communication complexity protocol for matrix compression, and connecting communication complexity to I/O complexity. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work to establish a connection between communication complexity and I/O complexity, and we believe this connection could be of independent interest and will find many more applications in proving I/O complexity lower bounds in the future.

Explore related subjects

cs.LGcs.CCcs.DScs.ITmath.IT

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Barna Saha, Christopher Ye. 2024-02-12. The I/O Complexity of Attention, or How Optimal is Flash Attention?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.07443

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

AUC Maximization from Biased Positive-unlabeled Data with Confidence

Maximizing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a standard approach to imbalanced binary classification. Although positive and negative data are required for maximizing the AUC, negative data are often difficult to collect in some real-world applications due to privacy concerns or the need for specialized expertise to annotate them. Thus, AUC maximization from positive and unlabeled (PU) data has been attracting attention. Existing methods assume that labeled positive data are unbiased samples from the true positive distribution. However, this ideal assumption is often violated in practice. In this paper, we propose a method to maximize the AUC from biased PU data. To address the bias, our key idea is to exploit {\it confidence}, i.e., the probability that an instance is positive, associated with the small number of labeled positive data. We derive an estimator of the AUC risk using biased PU data with confidence, enabling AUC maximization under such bias. We further show that the rewritten AUC risk induces a Bayes-optimal AUC ranking even when the available confidence is any strictly increasing transformation of the true posterior probability. We experimentally show the effectiveness of our method on eight real-world datasets.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Measuring the Value of World-Model Updates: A Counterfactual Utility Protocol for Continual Adaptation

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

When More Is Not Better: Component Anti-Synergy in a P300 Speller

P300 brain-computer interface (BCI) spellers can provide hands-free communication for people with severe motor impairments. Modern pipelines combine multiple individually promising components, often assuming that 'more-is-better'. We tested this assumption using a four-component full-factorial experiment varying the inclusion of Euclidean Alignment (EA), xDAWN spatial filtering, subject calibration, and language model priors on a public P300 dataset. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, repetitions, and information transfer rate (ITR) with mixed-effects models. Results show that the value of components is conditional rather than additive. Calibration was the strongest singular contributor, while EA compensated for its absence in zero-calibration settings. Adding independently useful components could also reduce performance, revealing component anti-synergy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, LM support was not universally beneficial: its effect depends strongly on the strength of the underlying EEG pipeline, while results from a larger LM showed a similar pattern. Together, these findings challenge maximal 'all-on' pipeline design and highlight the value of selecting spatial and language-support components according to the quality of available EEG evidence.

cs.LG↗