mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

The Entropic Bound for Transformers: Why Static Rank Fails and Attention-Native Rank Recovers

arXiv 2607.23050 ↗First posted 25 Jul 2026cs.LGcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Neural scaling laws describe how loss decreases as models, data, and compute grow, but they do not answer a prior question: for a fixed task, what is the minimum model capacity required to solve it? We study this through the Entropic Bound, a spectral notion of task-intrinsic capacity for Transformers. We first prove that, in a linear attention surrogate, the intrinsic rank r^* of the token-mixing operator is a tight lower bound: any rank-deficient model incurs unavoidable excess risk, and the bound is achievable at r^*. We further show that gradient descent recovers this rank under standard low-rank implicit-bias assumptions, confirm all three properties empirically, and show r^* is recoverable from data before training. We then ask whether this transfers to real attention. A naive transfer fails, and a controlled interpolation ladder localizes the cause precisely: it is not softmax and not a rank constraint, but the input-conditioned nature of attention's mixing operator, which a static weight kernel cannot summarize. Motivated by this, we introduce an attention-native intrinsic rank -- the minimum query-key kernel rank realizing the task within the attention class -- and show that under this definition the full Entropic Bound structure (deficiency, achievability, recovery) is restored for both linear and softmax attention, with the energy effective rank as the estimator robust to softmax distortion. Finally, we map the boundary of data-only predictability: r^* is exactly recoverable for linear QK attention, even without the value map at scale, while softmax attention admits only partial pre-training recovery due to nonlinear inversion and kernel-value identifiability effects. Our results reframe the Entropic Bound from a post-hoc descriptor into an attention-native capacity measure with a precisely characterized predictability frontier.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 6 of its 16 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Jul 2026.

Builds on

6 of 16 references.

References · 6

  1. 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,586
  2. 2022Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Modelscited by 3,019
  3. 2020Intrinsic Dimensionality Explains the Effectiveness of Language Model Fine-Tuningcited by 671
  4. 2021Attention is Not All You Need: Pure Attention Loses Rank Doubly Exponentially with Depthcited by 419
  5. 2019Implicit Regularization in Deep Matrix Factorizationcited by 405
  6. 2017Implicit Regularization in Matrix Factorizationcited by 322

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.