So, unlike what leaders of western labs labs would like you to believe (that Kimi is just the result of distillation attacks), they are introducing new and novel approaches.
Even if they are distilling, I don't particularly care. Anthropic and others have been distilling copyrighted material by to build these models, largely without permission.
Genuine question: how reproducible / usable / verifiable are these architectures from the published documentation? Are they similar to PDF/DWG/PSD specifications, where the format look like an open spec at first sight until you attempt to implement it and realize the crucial implementation details are undocumented?
Implementing models directly from papers is typically pretty doable (and is of course more straightforward when the full implementation is open sourced). Often there is some amount of specific knowledge, like particular hyperparameters, that is missing and has to be trial and errored by the community, but generally speaking, getting the core model architecture implemented is a reasonable task for most well documented models.
Reproducing the exact training run, however, is basically impossible without the original dataset and training pipeline (here meaning all of the code + infra involved in actually executing the pre and post training loops). Also, it would be exorbitantly expensive to do if you weren't also a lab trying to train a similar model.
But you can still scale the architecture down and experiment as a solo researcher using the published research. There are probably some open source implementations already on GitHub for any given big open model release.
"Interestingly, Kimi K3 got rid of all RoPE layers and uses NoPE (No Positional Embeddings) everywhere instead."
It just baffles me that this even works at all. Doesn't it just become a token soup? Is attention that precise that a second token can tell its the second token just because it learns to accumulate something in the embedding space without any sort of inductive bias?
And adding to that, there is also the recurrent state in the Kimi Delta Attention. I wouldn't call it position information but more sth like "position sensitivity"
As a sibling comment points out you don't strictly need positional embeddings for decoder-only causal transformers. You definitely need it for non-causal ones (e.g. the encoder of the original transformer paper!).
And yes accumulation is a good intuition for what's going on. You could imagine a part of the attention head that just kept writing to the same part of the residual stream causing that to keep accumulating (simply via attention summation) as more input tokens come in thereby functioning as a kind of index without the need for any positional encoding.
Linear layers use decays (like IIR filters) that naturally provide relative positions. Full attention layers can then be free to develop concepts that attend to each other regardless of distance.
Great breakdown. After using Kimi extensively, it's fascinating to see how architectural choices like KDA and NoPE translate into such strong real-world performance. Really impressive engineering.
Interesting that they went NoPE everywhere — everyone else hedges with RoPE in the local layers. Feels like the linear-attention stuff (Kimi Delta) is quietly doing the positional work so they can get away with it. Curious to see if it holds up at frontier scale.
Kimi Delta Attention (KDA), despite having "Attention" in the name, isn't really attention at all in any conventional sense. It's more like an RNN which can be efficiently parallelized during training. It's a very small modification to Gated DeltaNet, which can be described as an RNN whose hidden state acts like a small, editable attention memory.
Because it's RNN-like, it has an inherent idea that X comes before Y which comes before Z in the sequence XYZ. Transformers, by default, don't have that. They operate on sets, unordered collections of unique items. They have no idea where those items are in relation to each-other so you have to clue them in.
Because There are 3 KDA layers per attention layer, and 3 KDA layers before the first attention layer, every single token position is going to be able to learn information about where it is in the sequence before the first actual attention layer.
RoPE is actually a bit destructive, so being able to omit it like this is very convenient. Models like Gemma-4 have a similar structure with 5:1 Sliding Window Attention (SWA) layers for every global attention layer. These are cheap, shitty attention layers which handle local information and which go in-between the big powerful ones, KDA serves the same role in this model. In Gemma only the SWA layers have RoPE while the global attention layers omit it. SWA is actual attention, even if it only operates on a small sliding window, so it needs the positional embedding. KDA isn't, so it doesn't.
>Curious to see if it holds up at frontier scale.
I don't know how much more frontier scale you can get than this, but yes, there's no reason why that wouldn't work at larger scales. Honestly, more parameters just makes it easier for the KDA layers to communicate that positional information better.
Is frontier scale larger than this? Kimi K3 seems to benchmark in the same range as Opus and Fable. I would have expected they are all in the 2-4T range, with quality of the training and architecture differences as the major differentiators
The number of active parameters is vastly different. Deepseek CEO hinted that he estimates it as an order of magnitude difference in one of his recent interviews.
It has some weird side effects though. for example KV-caches are implemented in fixed incremental token blocks (1024 from the providers I used) instead of simply caching up to the most recent input prompt input. It results in up to 1023 additional input (cache miss) tokens per inference.
Sounds a lot like running the Qwen3.5/3.6-series models at home: you need checkpoints for the recurrent state (GDN in the case of Qwen). You avoid the miss for the common case of 100% prefix match (e.g. during interleaved tool calls and thinking) by keeping an additional checkpoint for the actual last generated token. If you're a cloud provider serving many concurrent clients then you might prefer to skip that complexity and always take the 1k worst-case prefill hit.
SWA has a similar issue. Unless you keep the entire KV prefix lying around (which is not unreasonable: you retain flop + bandwidth benefits but lose capacity benefits), you need to start 1 window back from the rollback point, in order to refill the sliding window before going into normal prefill.
Just tried K3 out for the first time today and it's a legitimate threat.
Temporarily (maybe permanently) using it as my daily driver but it's wild how comparable it is to Opus 4.7/4.8 (what's been my go to for a bit now—wrote a quick post on what I found today [1]).
Better than Opus 4.8 on complex tasks but tends to overthink.
It found a bunch of bugs and architecture issues that only 5.6 Sol Max and Fable on my C++ projects.
So, unlike what leaders of western labs labs would like you to believe (that Kimi is just the result of distillation attacks), they are introducing new and novel approaches.
Even if they are distilling, I don't particularly care. Anthropic and others have been distilling copyrighted material by to build these models, largely without permission.
this is so true honestly
No! It's just not fair!! What about our financial bubble!
"attack"
Genuine question: how reproducible / usable / verifiable are these architectures from the published documentation? Are they similar to PDF/DWG/PSD specifications, where the format look like an open spec at first sight until you attempt to implement it and realize the crucial implementation details are undocumented?
Implementing models directly from papers is typically pretty doable (and is of course more straightforward when the full implementation is open sourced). Often there is some amount of specific knowledge, like particular hyperparameters, that is missing and has to be trial and errored by the community, but generally speaking, getting the core model architecture implemented is a reasonable task for most well documented models.
Reproducing the exact training run, however, is basically impossible without the original dataset and training pipeline (here meaning all of the code + infra involved in actually executing the pre and post training loops). Also, it would be exorbitantly expensive to do if you weren't also a lab trying to train a similar model.
But you can still scale the architecture down and experiment as a solo researcher using the published research. There are probably some open source implementations already on GitHub for any given big open model release.
The code is open source, and there probably several different implementations.
Sabastian Raschka is one of the great LLM researchers/authors. I highly recommend his substack
This seems like a rare gem in a space swamped with lazily LLM generated summaries. Added to my RSS feed!
I would describe him as a leading educator / explainer / teacher in this space.
Never heard of him before but I was amazed how straight to the point yet very easy to grasp it was
I second that. I've always enjoyed his work!
"Interestingly, Kimi K3 got rid of all RoPE layers and uses NoPE (No Positional Embeddings) everywhere instead."
It just baffles me that this even works at all. Doesn't it just become a token soup? Is attention that precise that a second token can tell its the second token just because it learns to accumulate something in the embedding space without any sort of inductive bias?
Causal masking allow model to learn implicit positional embeddings. The meme that a transformer block is permutation invariant is not true.
And adding to that, there is also the recurrent state in the Kimi Delta Attention. I wouldn't call it position information but more sth like "position sensitivity"
As a sibling comment points out you don't strictly need positional embeddings for decoder-only causal transformers. You definitely need it for non-causal ones (e.g. the encoder of the original transformer paper!).
And yes accumulation is a good intuition for what's going on. You could imagine a part of the attention head that just kept writing to the same part of the residual stream causing that to keep accumulating (simply via attention summation) as more input tokens come in thereby functioning as a kind of index without the need for any positional encoding.
Linear layers use decays (like IIR filters) that naturally provide relative positions. Full attention layers can then be free to develop concepts that attend to each other regardless of distance.
At least the SSM layers should have relative PE built in via recurrence, in a hybrid attention model like this.
Great breakdown. After using Kimi extensively, it's fascinating to see how architectural choices like KDA and NoPE translate into such strong real-world performance. Really impressive engineering.
i like your detailed breakdown. Thanks. <3
Concise. Nice.
Interesting that they went NoPE everywhere — everyone else hedges with RoPE in the local layers. Feels like the linear-attention stuff (Kimi Delta) is quietly doing the positional work so they can get away with it. Curious to see if it holds up at frontier scale.
Kimi Delta Attention (KDA), despite having "Attention" in the name, isn't really attention at all in any conventional sense. It's more like an RNN which can be efficiently parallelized during training. It's a very small modification to Gated DeltaNet, which can be described as an RNN whose hidden state acts like a small, editable attention memory.
Because it's RNN-like, it has an inherent idea that X comes before Y which comes before Z in the sequence XYZ. Transformers, by default, don't have that. They operate on sets, unordered collections of unique items. They have no idea where those items are in relation to each-other so you have to clue them in.
Because There are 3 KDA layers per attention layer, and 3 KDA layers before the first attention layer, every single token position is going to be able to learn information about where it is in the sequence before the first actual attention layer.
RoPE is actually a bit destructive, so being able to omit it like this is very convenient. Models like Gemma-4 have a similar structure with 5:1 Sliding Window Attention (SWA) layers for every global attention layer. These are cheap, shitty attention layers which handle local information and which go in-between the big powerful ones, KDA serves the same role in this model. In Gemma only the SWA layers have RoPE while the global attention layers omit it. SWA is actual attention, even if it only operates on a small sliding window, so it needs the positional embedding. KDA isn't, so it doesn't.
>Curious to see if it holds up at frontier scale.
I don't know how much more frontier scale you can get than this, but yes, there's no reason why that wouldn't work at larger scales. Honestly, more parameters just makes it easier for the KDA layers to communicate that positional information better.
Is frontier scale larger than this? Kimi K3 seems to benchmark in the same range as Opus and Fable. I would have expected they are all in the 2-4T range, with quality of the training and architecture differences as the major differentiators
The number of active parameters is vastly different. Deepseek CEO hinted that he estimates it as an order of magnitude difference in one of his recent interviews.
> Seems to benchmark
yes, but in human usage the differences show up
Would you happen to have a link to that interview? Sounds like an interesting read.
It's related to this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49052912
It was posted to HN a few days back
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49019012 (original chinese)
2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49052912 (translated english [pdf])
It has some weird side effects though. for example KV-caches are implemented in fixed incremental token blocks (1024 from the providers I used) instead of simply caching up to the most recent input prompt input. It results in up to 1023 additional input (cache miss) tokens per inference.
Sounds a lot like running the Qwen3.5/3.6-series models at home: you need checkpoints for the recurrent state (GDN in the case of Qwen). You avoid the miss for the common case of 100% prefix match (e.g. during interleaved tool calls and thinking) by keeping an additional checkpoint for the actual last generated token. If you're a cloud provider serving many concurrent clients then you might prefer to skip that complexity and always take the 1k worst-case prefill hit.
SWA has a similar issue. Unless you keep the entire KV prefix lying around (which is not unreasonable: you retain flop + bandwidth benefits but lose capacity benefits), you need to start 1 window back from the rollback point, in order to refill the sliding window before going into normal prefill.
This comment smells LLM generated.
Huh, which model? I didn't pick up any of the tells. It seemed normal enough to me. (I vouched it, oops.)
Telling which model wrote it is much harder than telling that some model wrote it.
Screams it in fact
"Quietly"
"at frontier scale"
"—"
Awesome
Just tried K3 out for the first time today and it's a legitimate threat.
Temporarily (maybe permanently) using it as my daily driver but it's wild how comparable it is to Opus 4.7/4.8 (what's been my go to for a bit now—wrote a quick post on what I found today [1]).
[1] https://graybearding.bearblog.dev/kimi-k3-is-insane/
Better than Opus 4.8 on complex tasks but tends to overthink. It found a bunch of bugs and architecture issues that only 5.6 Sol Max and Fable on my C++ projects.