Organizations: VRAIN – Valencian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain · Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain · Department of Business Organisation, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain
Hybrid language models combine softmax attention with linear-time sequence mechanisms such as state-space or linear-attention layers, but the functional contribution of each component type remains insufficiently characterized. We study component-level ablation in two sub-1B hybrid language models, Qwen3.5-0.8B and Falcon-H1-0.5B, using likelihood-based evaluation, downstream benchmarks, layer-wise interventions, random controls, and representation-level diagnostics. Across the tested models, removing either attention or the alternative sequence-processing pathway substantially degrades performance, indicating that both component types contribute to model behavior. Likelihood metrics are especially sensitive to the linear-attention or state-space pathway, while downstream benchmark degradation depends on task and architecture. Layer-wise ablations show that component importance is position-dependent, with the strongest effects concentrated in early or mid-network components rather than uniformly across depth. Random-removal controls further show that hybrid architectures and same-family Transformer baselines degrade differently under structural perturbation. These results suggest that component ablation is a useful diagnostic for understanding hybrid language model architectures. The findings provide evidence relevant to efficient model design, compression, robustness analysis, and deployment decisions in architectures that combine attention with alternative sequence-processing mechanisms.
Figures & tables
Model
Condition
MMLU
GSM8K
ARC-C
HSwag
TFQA
Qwen3.5 0.8B
Baseline
.489
.350
.742
.516
.285
Linear off ∗
.250 (-.239)
.000 (-.350)
.261 (-.482)
.268 (-.248)
.230 (-.054)
Attention off ∗
.214 (-.274)
.000 (-.350)
.227 (-.515)
.341 (-.175)
.267 (-.018)
Falcon-H1 0.5B
Baseline
.568
.400
.736
.512
.223
SSM off ∗
.224 (-.344)
.030 (-.370)
.211 (-.525)
.265 (-.247)
.263 (+.041)
Attention off ∗
.228 (-.340)
.000 (-.400)
.214 (-.522)
.369 (-.143)
.227 (+.004)
Table 1: Group ablation results across five benchmarks. Values show absolute score; parentheses show change from baseline ( Δ ). Conditions marked with ∗ indicate that the mean score drop across all benchmarks has a bootstrap 95% CI excluding zero. Note that individual benchmarks may vary: TruthfulQA shows non-significant drops under some conditions.
Figure 1: Benchmark accuracy under baseline and group-level component ablations for Qwen3.5-0.8B and Falcon-H1-0.5B. Values correspond to the scores in Table 1 . Lower values indicate greater performance degradation after removing the specified component type. The plot summarizes task-level effects and should be interpreted together with the per-benchmark deltas in Table 1 .
Model
Condition
Loss
Perplexity
× Baseline
Qwen3.5 0.8B
Baseline
2.03
7.6
1.0 ×
Linear off
12.50
268,337
35,200 ×
Attention off
6.44
625
82 ×
Falcon-H1 0.5B
Baseline
1.73
5.6
1.0 ×
SSM off
5.69
295
53 ×
Attention off
2.88
17.7
3.2 ×
Table 2: WikiText-2 perplexity under group ablation. Removing the linear-attention pathway in Qwen3.5-0.8B and the SSM pathway in Falcon-H1-0.5B produces larger likelihood degradation than removing attention in the corresponding model. Multipliers are computed from full-precision values; displayed values are rounded.
Figure 2: WikiText-2 perplexity under group-level component ablation, shown on a logarithmic scale. Removing the linear-attention pathway in Qwen3.5-0.8B and the SSM pathway in Falcon-H1-0.5B produces larger likelihood degradation than removing attention in the corresponding model. Multipliers are computed from full-precision values; displayed table values are rounded.
Model
Condition
Targeted Mean
Random Ctrl Mean
Qwen3.5 0.8B
Linear off (18 layers)
.202
.199 ± .011
Attention off (6 layers)
.210
.206 ± .005
Falcon-H1 0.5B
SSM off (all blocks)
.198
.203 ± .012
Table 3: Comparison of targeted ablation versus matched random controls (mean ± standard deviation over 3 trials, averaged across all 5 benchmarks). Random controls remove the same number of computational units as the corresponding targeted condition. The comparison separates degradation due to the quantity and position of disrupted units from degradation associated with a specific component type.
Condition
Targeted PPL
Random PPL
Redundancy
Linear off (18 layers)
268,337
1,748,920 ± 766,270
6.5 ×
Attention off (6 layers)
625
41,154 ± 81,609
66 ×
Table 4: WikiText-2 perplexity under targeted vs. matched random ablation for Qwen3.5-0.8B (mean ± standard deviation over 5 trials). Targeted removal causes less mean PPL damage than random removal of the same number of layers. Ratios are computed from mean PPL values; the 6-layer random control has high variance because some samples include critical early layers.
Layers removed
Hybrid ( × base)
Transformer ( × base)
Ratio
18 of 24
229,408 ×
4,701,068 ×
20 ×
6 of 24
5,398 ×
640,850 ×
119 ×
Table 5: Perplexity under random layer removal: hybrid (Qwen3.5-0.8B) vs. pure Transformer (Qwen2.5-0.5B). Values are normalized as multiples of each model’s baseline perplexity to enable cross-architecture comparison. Under this protocol, the Transformer control shows 20–119 × larger normalized PPL increases than the hybrid model.
Figure 3: Mean benchmark accuracy under targeted component ablation and matched random ablation. Random controls remove the same number of computational units as the corresponding targeted condition and are averaged over trials; error bars show standard deviation across random trials. The comparison separates degradation due to the quantity and position of disrupted units from degradation associated with a specific component type.
Figure 4: Layer-wise ablation impact, measured as the mean accuracy drop from baseline across MMLU and ARC-Challenge after ablating one component at one layer. Points correspond only to layers where the component is present. Larger positive values indicate greater degradation. The strongest effects are concentrated in early or mid-network components, while late layers generally show smaller drops.
Figure 5: Per-benchmark layer-wise ablation impact for each model. Cell values show score drop from the corresponding baseline after ablating a single component at the indicated layer. Warmer colors indicate larger degradation; blank cells indicate layers where that component type is not present. The heatmaps provide a task-specific view of the positional sensitivity summarized in Figure 4 .
Component
Position
MMLU
GSM8K
ARC-C
HSwag
TFQA
Baseline
.568
.400
.736
.512
.223
SSM off
Early
.255
.020
.294
.274
.248
Middle
.454
.280
.592
.457
.224
Late
.538
.160
.676
.485
.234
Attn off
Early
.278
.040
.244
.442
.230
Middle
.441
.000
.555
.412
.225
Table 6: Falcon-H1 positional ablation: removing all components of one type within a positional third. Early-layer ablation causes substantially more damage than late-layer ablation for both SSM and attention.
Figure 6: Relationship between layer-wise hidden-state diagnostics and behavioral ablation impact. Each point corresponds to one ablated component/layer condition. The x -axis reports either normalized hidden-state change or logit-lens KL divergence; the y -axis reports mean accuracy drop across MMLU and ARC-Challenge. Pearson correlations and p -values are computed over the plotted points. Norm change correlates positively with ablation impact in Qwen and more weakly in Falcon, whereas logit-lens KL does not significantly predict ablation impact in either model.
Figure 7: Score drop by benchmark and group-ablation condition. Columns correspond to benchmarks and rows to model–condition pairs. Warmer colors indicate larger degradation relative to the corresponding baseline; negative values indicate improvement under ablation. In the tested models, GSM8K shows the largest drops, HellaSwag shows clear component asymmetry, and TruthfulQA is comparatively insensitive to several ablations.
Hybrid language models that interleave attention with recurrent components are increasingly competitive with pure Transformers, yet standard LoRA practice applies adapters uniformly without considering the distinct functional roles of each component type. We systematically study component-type LoRA placement across two hybrid architectures -- Qwen3.5-0.8B (sequential, GatedDeltaNet + softmax attention) and Falcon-H1-0.5B (parallel, Mamba-2 SSM + attention) -- fine-tuned on three domains and evaluated on five benchmarks. We find that the attention pathway -- despite being the minority component -- consistently outperforms full-model adaptation with 5-10x fewer trainable parameters. Crucially, adapting the recurrent backbone is destructive in sequential hybrids (-14.8 pp on GSM8K) but constructive in parallel ones (+8.6 pp). We further document a transfer asymmetry: parallel hybrids exhibit positive cross-task transfer while sequential hybrids suffer catastrophic forgetting. These results establish that hybrid topology fundamentally determines adaptation response, and that component-aware LoRA placement is a necessary design dimension for hybrid architectures.
VRAIN – Valencian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain · Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain · Department of Business Organisation, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain
Speculative decoding accelerates autoregressive inference by drafting candidate tokens with a fast model and verifying them in parallel with the target. Self-speculative methods avoid the need for an external drafter but have been studied exclusively in homogeneous Transformer architectures. We introduce component-aware self-speculative decoding, the first method to exploit the internal architectural heterogeneity of hybrid language models, isolating the SSM/linear-attention subgraph as a zero-cost internal draft. We evaluate this on two architecturally distinct hybrid families: Falcon-H1 (parallel: Mamba-2 + attention per layer) and Qwen3.5 (sequential: interleaved linear and attention layers), with a pure Transformer control (Qwen2.5). Parallel hybrids achieve acceptance rates of alpha = 0.68 at draft length k=2 under greedy decoding, while sequential hybrids yield only alpha = 0.038 -- an 18x gap attributable to how each architecture integrates its components. The property is scale-invariant: Falcon-H1 at 3B reproduces the rates observed at 0.5B. We further show that perplexity degradation from a companion ablation study predicts speculative viability without running speculative decoding: a 3.15x ratio (Falcon) maps to alpha = 0.37 at k=4, while 81.96x (Qwen) maps to alpha = 0.019. For sequential hybrids, generic LayerSkip achieves 12x higher acceptance rates than the component-aware strategy. The composition pattern of hybrid models -- not merely the presence of alternative components -- determines whether component-level self-speculation is viable.
VRAIN – Valencian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain · Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain · Department of Business Organisation, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain
We report an exploratory, single-seed ablation of TALH (Adaptive Latent Hybrid), a decoder-only language model with parallel Multi-head Latent Attention (MLA) and a custom recurrent state-space (SSM) branch. Five variants, spanning 117--217M estimated active parameters per token, are trained from scratch on a FineWeb sample for the same number of optimisation steps and tokens. In this specific setup, removing the SSM branch gives the largest degradation in validation perplexity (MLA-only PPL 315), whereas removing MLA has a much smaller effect (SSM-only PPL 239). A dense-FFN hybrid obtains PPL 231, compared with 240 for the tested top-2 ternary-MoE hybrid, while using 3.87 GB less peak training memory. We also preserve a preliminary Apple M3 timing observation: among the five unoptimised implementations, MLA-only has the flattest measured time-to-first-token curve from 512 to 2,048 prompt tokens, although the dense Transformer is much faster in absolute terms. Because the runs are single-seed, parameter counts are unmatched, the evaluation stream may overlap the training source, and raw repeated timing records are unavailable, these results support implementation-specific hypotheses rather than general conclusions about MLA, SSMs, or mixture-of-experts models.
Christos Koutsiaris
Development Expert, SAP P&E, Cloud ERP, UX Foundation