REVIEW 3 cited by
Transformers Learn Low Sensitivity Functions: Investigations and Implications
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Transformers achieve state-of-the-art accuracy and robustness across many tasks, but an understanding of their inductive biases and how those biases differ from other neural network architectures remains elusive. In this work, we identify the sensitivity of the model to token-wise random perturbations in the input as a unified metric which explains the inductive bias of transformers across different data modalities and distinguishes them from other architectures. We show that transformers have lower sensitivity than MLPs, CNNs, ConvMixers and LSTMs, across both vision and language tasks. We also show that this low-sensitivity bias has important implications: i) lower sensitivity correlates with improved robustness; it can also be used as an efficient intervention to further improve the robustness of transformers; ii) it corresponds to flatter minima in the loss landscape; and iii) it can serve as a progress measure for grokking. We support these findings with theoretical results showing (weak) spectral bias of transformers in the NTK regime, and improved robustness due to the lower sensitivity. The code is available at https://github.com/estija/sensitivity.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Can Transformers Really Do It All? On the Compatibility of Inductive Biases Across Tasks
Learned replacement non-linearities show transformers are rarely optimal for algorithmic tasks, with benefits that are task-specific, while language/code gains are smaller and more transferable.
-
Transformers with RL or SFT Provably Learn Sparse Boolean Functions, But Differently
Under hand-designed masks and task-specific activations, RL fine-tuning learns a k-sparse Boolean reasoning chain in one gradient update while SFT learns it one CoT step per update.
-
Minimalist Softmax Attention Provably Learns Constrained Boolean Functions
With teacher forcing that reveals pairwise products of the relevant bits, one gradient step lets a single-head attention recover the support of a k-bit AND/OR; the paper's claimed end-to-end hardness lower bound is in...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.