Contribution Weights: A Geometrical Analysis of Self-Attention Transformers
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Analyzing attention weights has become a standard approach for interpreting the information flow of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, this approach has significant limitations as it neglects the geometric properties of the value vectors being aggregated. To address this gap, we introduce Contribution Weights, a projection-based metric that quantifies a token's influence by accounting for it's attention weight, value magnitude, and directional alignment with the layer output. We demonstrate that contribution weights provide a more faithful measure of token importance, consistently outperforming attention-based metrics in identifying semantically critical tokens across different decoder-only models, tasks, and datasets. Further, our metric enables novel mechanistic analysis of attention sinks. While previous work characterized sinks as passive repositories for excess attention, we reveal they serve an active functional role, suppressing information through a convex relationship between sink rate and output norm, stabilizing representations by opposing the semantic drift of low-confidence tokens.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 May 2026.
Builds on
25 of 33 references.
References · 25
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,768
- 2019BoolQ: Exploring the Surprising Difficulty of Natural Yes/No Questionscited by 2,140
- 2023Efficient Streaming Language Models with Attention Sinkscited by 2,115
- 2024The FineWeb Datasets: Decanting the Web for the Finest Text Data at Scalecited by 1,104
- 2019Attention is not Explanationcited by 916
- 2023Vision Transformers Need Registerscited by 844
- 2019ERASER: A Benchmark to Evaluate Rationalized NLP Modelscited by 523
- 2024Massive Activations in Large Language Modelscited by 277
- 2024The Unreasonable Ineffectiveness of the Deeper Layerscited by 219
13 more
- 2023Quantizable Transformers: Removing Outliers by Helping Attention Heads Do Nothingcited by 147
- 2020The elephant in the interpretability room: Why use attention as explanation when we have saliency methods?cited by 122
- 2025Why do LLMs attend to the first token?cited by 122
- 2024A Simple and Effective L2 Norm-Based Strategy for KV Cache Compressioncited by 84
- 2024A Primer on the Inner Workings of Transformer-based Language Modelscited by 83
- 2024Attention Score is not All You Need for Token Importance Indicator in KV Cache Reduction: Value Also Matterscited by 73
- 2024Spectral Filters, Dark Signals, and Attention Sinkscited by 54
- 2024Active-Dormant Attention Heads: Mechanistically Demystifying Extreme-Token Phenomena in LLMscited by 54
- 2021Incorporating Residual and Normalization Layers into Analysis of Masked Language Modelscited by 50
- 2025Understanding the Skill Gap in Recurrent Language Models: The Role of the Gather-and-Aggregate Mechanismcited by 15
- 2024Attention Meets Post-hoc Interpretability: A Mathematical Perspectivecited by 11
- 2025OrthoRank: Token Selection via Sink Token Orthogonality for Efficient LLM inferencecited by 8
- 2025From Memorization to Reasoning in the Spectrum of Loss Curvaturecited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.