Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper develops a compositional theory for causally masked transformers, focusing on how finite precision affects the model's decision-making capabilities. By formalizing the model's dynamics algebraically, the authors reveal how different attention mechanisms influence memory retention and expressivity. The findings establish an expressivity hierarchy based on attention types and numerical semantics, showing that ordinary left-to-right floating-point soft attention can achieve more expressive memory operations than other mechanisms analyzed.
Finite precision in transformers can drastically alter memory operations, revealing a surprising hierarchy of expressivity based on attention mechanisms.
What types of decision problems can a causally masked, finite-precision transformer solve for inputs of arbitrary length? Existing answers often rely on idealized arithmetic, but under finite precision, rounding and evaluation order can change what information attention retains and therefore what the model can compute. We develop an algebraic formalization that derives expressivity directly from the model's implemented dynamics. Its central object is its memory; the finite internal state computed by attention that summarizes the information from the prefix available to all future queries. Each attention head updates its own state independently within a layer, while layers compose hierarchically, providing a uniform route from model assumptions to expressivity bounds. Applying this method to transformers without positional embeddings, we obtain an expressivity hierarchy governed by the attention type under specific numerical semantics. Width-one sliding-window attention supports bounded-suffix memory, while a modified form of soft attention supports irreversible, checklist-like state, and combining the two mechanisms provides an interplay of both. Ordinary left-to-right floating-point soft attention can realize more expressive memory operations than any of the above. Algebraically, the four cases correspond to definite, R-trivial, locally R-trivial, and aperiodic semigroups. Under an explicit free-wiring assumption, all four bounds are tight.