mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Three Tokens Force Exponential Feature Rank in Nonnegative Kernel Attention

arXiv 2608.11427 ↗First posted 11 Aug 2026cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

How much feature rank does comparison require in kernel attention? On Min-IP over m-bit tokens, rank one solves every sequence of length at most two exactly. At length three, the minimum feature rank of one normalized nonnegative kernel-attention head is 2Theta(m) for error strictly below 1/2 on every input, even with arbitrary finite-dimensional tokenwise values and query-dependent affine readouts. Dense softmax solves this three-token task with m-dimensional scores and temperature constant in m. For every fixed number of heads H, the minimum total feature rank is 2ThetaH(m) for the same error guarantee at exact length H+2 in one attention layer with affine mixing. These bounds also hold with position-dependent maps and a final causal query. For one head with polynomial readout of fixed degree at most D, rank one suffices at exact length D+1, while exact length D+2 requires exponential feature rank. With unrestricted exact-real decoding, a scalar rank-one construction solves the task at every finite length. This motivates a separate bound on total communication for deterministic models with finite-alphabet cross-token channels and any number of heads and layers. In this setting, correctness up to length n requires Omega(nlog m) bits over a range of lengths that grows exponentially with m.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Aug 2026.

Builds on

19 of 21 references.

References · 19

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
  2. 2020Transformers are RNNs: Fast Autoregressive Transformers with Linear Attentioncited by 2,022
  3. 2020Big Bird: Transformers for Longer Sequencescited by 1,684
  4. 2020Rethinking Attention with Performerscited by 1,601
  5. 2024Simple linear attention language models balance the recall-throughput tradeoffcited by 208
  6. 2025On the Theoretical Limitations of Embedding-Based Retrievalcited by 104
  7. 2020Low-Rank Bottleneck in Multi-head Attention Modelscited by 89
  8. 2024Transformers, parallel computation, and logarithmic depthcited by 79
  9. 2024Separations in the Representational Capabilities of Transformers and Recurrent Architecturescited by 29
  10. 2024Fundamental Limitations on Subquadratic Alternatives to Transformerscited by 9
  11. 2026ZeroS: Zero-Sum Linear Attention for Efficient Transformerscited by 5
  12. 2026Multi-Vector Embeddings are Provably More Expressive than Single Vector Embeddingscited by 5
7 more
  1. 2026Near-Optimal Dimension Lower Bounds for Single-Vector Embeddings of Maximum Inner Product Similaritycited by 5
  2. 2025The Effect of Attention Head Count on Transformer Approximationcited by 4
  3. 2026Kernelized Linear Attention: Breaking the Capacity Wall with Symmetric Conescited by 3
  4. 2026Provably Learning Multi-Head Attention with Queriescited by 2
  5. 2026A Provable Expressiveness Hierarchy in Hybrid Linear-Full Attentioncited by 1
  6. 2026The Impossibility Triangle of Long-Context Modelingcited by 1
  7. 2026Attention-based representations for multi-task computationcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.