mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Relevant and Irrelevant: A Renormalization Group Analysis of Transformer Attention

arXiv 2607.15449 ↗First posted 16 Jul 2026cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Using the language of Wilsonian renormalization group theory (RG), we treat the Transformer's attention mechanism as a perturbation of the trained MLP residual-stack fixed point and ask whether it constitutes a relevant, marginal, or irrelevant operator. We derive a fixed-point shift formula and obtain four testable predictions for the fixed-point geometry, effective rank profile, layer specificity, and perturbation decay spectrum. Testing these on synthetic Markov chain sequences with controlled correlation length, we find: (1) For large chains(long correlation), attention is strongly relevant: it closes a residual loss gap the MLP cannot bridge and drives a phase transition in representation space, with effective rank jumping above input dimensionality at layer 1 and stabilizing at a high-dimensional plateau. (2) For short chains(short correlation), attention is irrelevant: the Transformer converges to the same loss and fixed-point geometry as the MLP, though it contracts perturbations faster. (3) The transition is dominated by the first-layer head (L0H0), which accounts for more than 4 times the representational shift of any subsequent head, consistent with the prediction that the relevant operator acts before the MLP begins integrating out positional variation. (4) Perturbation decay experiments reveal a regime reversal: in the long correlation regime the Transformer selectively preserves slow Markov modes (5.4 times the dynamic range in decay length vs. 1.3 times for the MLP); in the short correlation regime it suppresses all modes faster than the MLP, with no spectral selectivity. Together, these results show that the relevance of attention is not a property of the architecture but of the spectral structure of the data-generating process, and that a first-order RG perturbation framework provides a predictive account of that difference.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 16 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Jul 2026.

Builds on

10 of 16 references.

References · 10

  1. 2019Similarity of Neural Network Representations Revisitedcited by 1,755
  2. 2019BERT Rediscovers the Classical NLP Pipelinecited by 1,059
  3. 2019What Does BERT Look At? An Analysis of BERT's Attentioncited by 1,003
  4. 2019Analyzing Multi-Head Self-Attention: Specialized Heads Do the Heavy Lifting, the Rest Can Be Prunedcited by 856
  5. 2024A Dynamical Model of Neural Scaling Lawscited by 111
  6. 2014An exact mapping between the Variational Renormalization Group and Deep Learningcited by 56
  7. 2024Attention with Markov: A Framework for Principled Analysis of Transformers via Markov Chainscited by 40
  8. 2026Dynamics of the Transformer Residual Stream: Coupling Spectral Geometry to Network Topologycited by 5
  9. 2026Latent Object Permanence: Topological Phase Transitions, Free-Energy Principles, and Renormalization Group Flows in Deep Transformer Manifoldscited by 2
  10. 2026Rank Collapse, Fixed Points, and the Renormalization Group Structure of MLP Residual Networkscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.