Gradient Flow Polarizes Softmax Outputs towards Low-Entropy Solutions
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Understanding the intricate non-convex training dynamics of softmax-based models is crucial for explaining the empirical success of transformers. In this article, we analyze the gradient flow dynamics of the value-softmax model, defined as L(V σ(a)), where V and a are a learnable value matrix and attention vector, respectively. As the matrix times softmax vector parameterization constitutes the core building block of self-attention, our analysis provides direct insight into transformer's training dynamics. We reveal that gradient flow on this structure inherently drives the optimization toward solutions characterized by low-entropy outputs. We demonstrate the universality of this polarizing effect across various objectives, including logistic and square loss. Furthermore, we discuss the practical implications of these theoretical results, offering a formal mechanism for empirical phenomena such as attention sinks and massive activations.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 13 Oct 2026). Builds on 30 of its 39 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Mar 2026.
Builds on
30 of 39 references.
References · 30
- 2020The Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for Language Modelingcited by 2,379
- 2023Efficient Streaming Language Models with Attention Sinkscited by 2,137
- 2020Transformers are RNNs: Fast Autoregressive Transformers with Linear Attentioncited by 1,994
- 2022In-context Learning and Induction Headscited by 940
- 2023Vision Transformers Need Registerscited by 850
- 2016From Softmax to Sparsemax: A Sparse Model of Attention and Multi-Label Classificationcited by 339
- 2024Massive Activations in Large Language Modelscited by 283
- 2022cosFormer: Rethinking Softmax in Attentioncited by 212
- 2024When Attention Sink Emerges in Language Models: An Empirical Viewcited by 202
- 2018Gradient descent aligns the layers of deep linear networkscited by 182
- 2023Stabilizing Transformer Training by Preventing Attention Entropy Collapsecited by 157
- 2023Birth of a Transformer: A Memory Viewpointcited by 156
18 more
- 2025Why do LLMs attend to the first token?cited by 123
- 2024The Hedgehog & the Porcupine: Expressive Linear Attentions with Softmax Mimicrycited by 119
- 2024What needs to go right for an induction head? A mechanistic study of in-context learning circuits and their formationcited by 87
- 2024Attention Score is not All You Need for Token Importance Indicator in KV Cache Reduction: Value Also Matterscited by 72
- 2024Unveiling and Harnessing Hidden Attention Sinks: Enhancing Large Language Models without Training through Attention Calibrationcited by 72
- 2024SEED-Story: Multimodal Long Story Generation with Large Language Modelcited by 70
- 2024Theory, Analysis, and Best Practices for Sigmoid Self-Attentioncited by 64
- 2024Active-Dormant Attention Heads: Mechanistically Demystifying Extreme-Token Phenomena in LLMscited by 54
- 2023Replacing softmax with ReLU in Vision Transformerscited by 44
- 2022Implicit Bias of Gradient Descent on Reparametrized Models: On Equivalence to Mirror Descentcited by 38
- 2025How do language models learn facts? Dynamics, curricula and hallucinationscited by 36
- 2024Prefixing Attention Sinks can Mitigate Activation Outliers for Large Language Model Quantizationcited by 33
- 2025The emergence of sparse attention: impact of data distribution and benefits of repetitioncited by 25
- 2024Self-attention Networks Localize When QK-eigenspectrum Concentratescited by 19
- 2024How Sparse Attention Approximates Exact Attention? Your Attention is Naturally nC-Sparsecited by 16
- 2025Attention Sinks: A 'Catch, Tag, Release' Mechanism for Embeddingscited by 16
- 2025Learning In-context n-grams with Transformers: Sub-n-grams Are Near-stationary Pointscited by 16
- 2015Opinion Dynamics in Social Networks with Hostile Camps: Consensus vs. Polarizationcited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.