Papers › Decentralized Attention Fails Centralized Signals: Rethinking Transformers for Medical...
Decentralized Attention Fails Centralized Signals: Rethinking Transformers for Medical Time Series
Guoqi Yu, Juncheng Wang, Chen Yang, Jing Qin, Angelica I. Aviles-Rivero, Shujun Wang
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Accurate analysis of medical time series (MedTS) data, such as electroencephalography (EEG) and electrocardiography (ECG), plays a pivotal role in healthcare applications, including the diagnosis of brain and heart diseases. MedTS data typically exhibit two critical patterns: temporal dependencies within individual channels and channel dependencies across multiple channels. While recent advances in deep learning have leveraged Transformer-based models to effectively capture temporal dependencies, they often struggle with modeling channel dependencies. This limitation stems from a structural mismatch: MedTS signals are inherently centralized, whereas the Transformer's attention mechanism is decentralized, making it less effective at capturing global synchronization and unified waveform patterns. To address this mismatch, we propose CoTAR (Core Token Aggregation-Redistribution), a centralized MLP-based module designed to replace decentralized attention. Instead of allowing all tokens to interact directly, as in standard attention, CoTAR introduces a global core token that serves as a proxy to facilitate inter-token interactions, thereby enforcing a centralized aggregation and redistribution strategy. This design not only better aligns with the centralized nature of MedTS signals but also reduces computational complexity from quadratic to linear. Experiments on five benchmarks validate the superiority of our method in both effectiveness and efficiency, achieving up to a 11.6% improvement on the APAVA dataset, while using only 33% of the memory and 20% of the inference time compared to the previous state of the art. Code and all training scripts are available at https://github.com/Levi-Ackman/TeCh.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2602.18473")
Code
Syntology Ran 12 of 16 code samples harvested from 5 repositories linked to this paper; 4 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · honoured contract; 4 ran · our draft was wrong; 7 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 16 samples from 5 repositories, 12 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
16 samples harvested; 12 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 4 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 9 of the 16 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from 5 repositories linked to this paper, official or community; each sample names its own and says which. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
4a12d6ab82452c5a · report
a9bc67a6671e9566 · report
61850d5c1dbe6dfc · report
79715b8a6ea11601 · report
7a6f485643430c78 · report
e9eb773ce4f3188f · report
1157b8b7e9f85f04 · report
91d15665390ebca8 · report
0af97909186cbf48 · report
027c93847484d85a · report
0ca4aa13a9a3729c · report
8b42f84b228597d9 · report
c16191ff247f7ea2 · report
4627b61e1771acc9 · report
48f25f4fa3a56b8b · report
2f00cdf36d6caa78 · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2602.18473, was issued in February 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections