# Retrieval Capacity of Self-Attention Under Competition

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.37879 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.37879/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 16 of its 21 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 29 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 16 of 16)

- [Attention Is All You Need](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03762/) (2017)
- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09288/) (2023)
- [Qwen2.5 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15115/) (2024)
- [Mistral 7B](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06825/) (2023)
- [Pointer Sentinel Mixture Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1609.07843/) (2016)
- [Efficient Streaming Language Models with Attention Sinks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.17453/) (2023)
- [Gemma 2: Improving Open Language Models at a Practical Size](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.00118/) (2024)
- [Hopfield Networks is All You Need](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2008.02217/) (2020)
- [From Softmax to Sparsemax: A Sparse Model of Attention and Multi-Label Classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1602.02068/) (2016)
- [BABILong: Testing the Limits of LLMs with Long Context Reasoning-in-a-Haystack](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.10149/) (2024)
- [Sparse Sequence-to-Sequence Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.05702/) (2019)
- [On Identifiability in Transformers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.04211/) (2019)
- [Active-Dormant Attention Heads: Mechanistically Demystifying Extreme-Token Phenomena in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.13835/) (2024)
- [OrthoRank: Token Selection via Sink Token Orthogonality for Efficient LLM inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.03865/) (2025)
- [Geometric Analysis of Token Selection in Multi-Head Attention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.01893/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

How many tokens from its context does a language model actually use, and what determines that number? We study this question through self-attention. Without retraining, we retain only the tokens with the highest attention weights at each head, layer, and query, keeping their original weights unchanged. By varying the selected set size and measuring the increase in negative log-likelihood (NLL), we estimate the effective attention set size needed to stay within a chosen loss tolerance. Relatively small selected sets can keep NLL close to the full-attention baseline, although the required size varies across models. Attention-based selection substantially outperforms random selection. Selected sets exhibit geometric structure, although geometric separation alone does not establish that model loss is preserved. Extending context while evaluating the same prediction targets increases the required set size, while its fraction of context decreases over the tested range. Experiments with a fixed supporting fact show that additional background pushes its tokens down the attention ranking and reduces their attention mass. Renormalizing the retained weights can substantially reduce the required set size, showing that it also depends on how selected representations are combined. Conditional theoretical models explain how competition and attention-mass retention can produce growing set sizes without more distinct information to retrieve. These results provide a way to measure effective attention set size in language models and investigate its dependence on context, competition, and aggregation.