mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Weight Tying Biases Token Embeddings Towards the Output Space

arXiv 2603.26663 ↗First posted 27 Mar 2026cs.CLcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Weight tying, i.e. sharing parameters between input and output embedding matrices, is common practice in language model design, yet its impact on the learned embedding space remains poorly understood. In this paper, we show that tied embedding matrices align more closely with output (unembedding) matrices than with input embeddings of comparable untied models, indicating that the shared matrix is shaped primarily for output prediction rather than input representation. This unembedding bias arises because output gradients dominate early in training. Using tuned lens analysis, we show this negatively affects early-layer computations, which contribute less effectively to the residual stream. Scaling input gradients during training reduces this bias, providing causal evidence for the role of gradient imbalance. This is mechanistic evidence that weight tying optimizes the embedding matrix for output prediction, compromising its role in input representation. These results help explain why weight tying can harm performance at scale and have implications for training smaller LLMs, where the embedding matrix contributes substantially to total parameter count.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 51 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Mar 2026.

Builds on

26 of 51 references.

References · 26

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  3. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
  4. 2018Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challengecited by 4,710
  5. 2019HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?cited by 4,018
  6. 2016Pointer Sentinel Mixture Modelscited by 2,992
  7. 2019PIQA: Reasoning about Physical Commonsense in Natural Languagecited by 2,818
  8. 2020The Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for Language Modelingcited by 2,346
  9. 2019BoolQ: Exploring the Surprising Difficulty of Natural Yes/No Questionscited by 2,140
  10. 2018Can a Suit of Armor Conduct Electricity? A New Dataset for Open Book Question Answeringcited by 2,114
  11. 2019How Contextual are Contextualized Word Representations? Comparing the Geometry of BERT, ELMo, and GPT-2 Embeddingscited by 770
  12. 2020XTREME: A Massively Multilingual Multi-task Benchmark for Evaluating Cross-lingual Generalizationcited by 738
14 more
  1. 2023Eliciting Latent Predictions from Transformers with the Tuned Lenscited by 579
  2. 2019BLiMP: The Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs for Englishcited by 553
  3. 2024Dolma: an Open Corpus of Three Trillion Tokens for Language Model Pretraining Researchcited by 475
  4. 2016Using the Output Embedding to Improve Language Modelscited by 266
  5. 2019Representation Degeneration Problem in Training Natural Language Generation Modelscited by 250
  6. 2013Exploiting Similarities among Languages for Machine Translationcited by 187
  7. 2019Emerging Cross-lingual Structure in Pretrained Language Modelscited by 180
  8. 2022Towards a Cleaner Document-Oriented Multilingual Crawled Corpuscited by 143
  9. 2020Rethinking embedding coupling in pre-trained language modelscited by 103
  10. 2016Tying Word Vectors and Word Classifiers: A Loss Framework for Language Modelingcited by 87
  11. 2019Improving Neural Language Modeling via Adversarial Trainingcited by 49
  12. 2021An Isotropy Analysis in the Multilingual BERT Embedding Spacecited by 25
  13. 2023Comparing Foundation Models using Data Kernelscited by 14
  14. 2025Better Embeddings with Coupled Adamcited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.