analiza aiqbench
This research identifies that decoder-only transformers derive absolute position information from two specific architectural mechanisms: the causal mask's position-dependent softmax denominator and the residual stream's dynamics at the initial token. The study further demonstrates how architectural choices like NTK scaling or sliding-window attention modulate the contribution of these components, offering a clearer theoretical understanding of position encoding leakage in RoPE models.
Where does Absolute Position come from in decoder-only Transformers?
arXiv:2606.06160v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: RoPE-trained transformers distinguish absolute position in their attention patterns, even though RoPE encodes only relative offsets in the inner product. We trace this leakage to two architectural components, The causal mask is responsible for the first: its per-query softmax denominator depends on the absolute query position by construction. The residual stream supplies the second. Under causal attention the activation at position $0$ attends only to itself and runs as a closed dynamical system from the embedding of the token at that position; downstream attention reads this trajectory through sink-reading heads. Both components appear in all three architectures we study, in architecturally specific balance: NTK scaling suppresses the residual-stream component, sliding-window attention allows it to accumulate with depth, and standard RoPE sits between. Replacing the \texttt{BOS} embedding before the forward pass removes $40\%$ of the residual-stream component at early queries. Attention sinks are token-anchored stabilizers that pass forward a deterministic fingerprint of the token at position $0$, constant across inputs when that token is the auto-prepended \texttt{BOS} and varying with it otherwise.
Title:Where does Absolute Position come from in decoder-only Transformers?
Abstract:RoPE-trained transformers distinguish absolute position in their attention patterns, even though RoPE encodes only relative offsets in the inner product. We trace this leakage to two architectural components, The causal mask is responsible for the first: its per-query softmax denominator depends on the absolute query position by construction. The residual stream supplies the second. Under causal attention the activation at position $0$ attends only to itself and runs as a closed dynamical system from the embedding of the token at that position; downstream attention reads this trajectory through sink-reading heads. Both components appear in all three architectures we study, in architecturally specific balance: NTK scaling suppresses the residual-stream component, sliding-window attention allows it to accumulate with depth, and standard RoPE sits between. Replacing the \texttt{BOS} embedding before the forward pass removes $40\%$ of the residual-stream component at early queries. Attention sinks are token-anchored stabilizers that pass forward a deterministic fingerprint of the token at position $0$, constant across inputs when that token is the auto-prepended \texttt{BOS} and varying with it otherwise.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2606.06160 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2606.06160v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.06160 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 278 cuvinte
