mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Strassen Attention, Split VC Dimension and Compositionality in Transformers

arXiv 2501.19215 ↗First posted 31 Jan 2025cs.LG cs.AIcited by 12

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We propose the first method to show theoretical limitations for one-layer softmax transformers with arbitrarily many precision bits (even infinite). We establish those limitations for three tasks that require advanced reasoning. The first task, Match 3 (Sanford et al., 2023), requires looking at all possible token triplets in an input sequence. The second and third tasks address compositionality-based reasoning: function composition (Peng et al., 2024) and binary relations composition, respectively. We formally prove the inability of one-layer softmax Transformers to solve any of these tasks. To overcome these limitations, we introduce Strassen attention and prove that, equipped with this mechanism, a one-layer transformer can in principle solve all these tasks. Importantly, we show that it enjoys sub-cubic running-time complexity, making it more scalable than similar previously proposed mechanisms, such as higher-order attention (Sanford et al., 2023). To complement our theoretical findings, we experimentally studied Strassen attention and compared it against standard (Vaswani et al, 2017), higher-order attention (Sanford et al., 2023), and triangular attention (Bergen et al. 2021). Our results help to disentangle all these attention mechanisms, highlighting their strengths and limitations. In particular, Strassen attention outperforms standard attention significantly on all the tasks. Altogether, understanding the theoretical limitations can guide research towards scalable attention mechanisms that improve the reasoning abilities of Transformers.

Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 Jan 2025.

Builds on

15 of 27 references.

References · 15

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2023Faith and Fate: Limits of Transformers on Compositionalitycited by 496
  3. 2019Theoretical Limitations of Self-Attention in Neural Sequence Modelscited by 286
  4. 2019Measuring Compositional Generalization: A Comprehensive Method on Realistic Datacited by 280
  5. 2019Compositionality decomposed: how do neural networks generalise?cited by 264
  6. 2020COGS: A Compositional Generalization Challenge Based on Semantic Interpretationcited by 260
  7. 2018Deep Learning: A Critical Appraisalcited by 214
  8. 2019CLUTRR: A Diagnostic Benchmark for Inductive Reasoning from Textcited by 155
  9. 2023Representational Strengths and Limitations of Transformerscited by 132
  10. 2021Making Transformers Solve Compositional Taskscited by 72
  11. 2024On Limitations of the Transformer Architecturecited by 63
  12. 2022A Benchmark for Compositional Visual Reasoningcited by 43
3 more
  1. 2021Systematic Generalization with Edge Transformerscited by 38
  2. 2024Separations in the Representational Capabilities of Transformers and Recurrent Architecturescited by 29
  3. 2022Faster Matrix Multiplication via Asymmetric Hashingcited by 19

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 9.

12 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026The Expressive Power of Low Precision Softmax Transformers with (Summarized) Chain-of-Thought
  2. 2025Lower Bounds for Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Hard-Attention Transformers
  3. 2025Softmax Transformers are Turing-Complete
  4. 2026Symmetry Breaking in Transformers for Efficient and Interpretable Training
  5. 2025Pause Tokens Strictly Increase the Expressivity of Constant-Depth Transformers
  6. 2025The End of Transformers? On Challenging Attention and the Rise of Sub-Quadratic Architectures
  7. 2024Fundamental Limitations on Subquadratic Alternatives to Transformers
  8. 2025SCOUT: Toward Sub-Quadratic Attention via Segment Compression for Optimized Utility in Transformers