Deep sequence models tend to memorize geometrically; it is unclear why
Shahriar Noroozizadeh, Vaishnavh Nagarajan, Elan Rosenfeld, Sanjiv Kumar
Abstract
Deep sequence models are said to store atomic facts predominantly in the form of associative memory: a brute-force lookup of co-occurring entities. We identify a dramatically different form of storage of atomic facts that we term as geometric memory. Here, the model has synthesized embeddings encoding novel global relationships between all entities, including ones that do not co-occur in training. Such storage is powerful: for instance, we show how it transforms a hard reasoning task involving an -fold composition into an easy-to-learn -step navigation task. From this phenomenon, we extract fundamental aspects of neural embedding geometries that are hard to explain. We argue that the rise of such a geometry, as against a lookup of local associations, cannot be straightforwardly attributed to typical supervisory, architectural, or optimizational pressures. Counterintuitively, a geometry is learned even when it is more complex than the brute-force lookup. Then, by analyzing a connection to Node2Vec, we demonstrate how the geometry stems from a spectral bias that—in contrast to prevailing theories—indeed arises naturally despite the lack of various pressures. This analysis also points out to practitioners a visible headroom to make Transformer memory more strongly geometric. We hope the geometric view of parametric memory encourages revisiting the default intuitions that guide researchers in areas like knowledge acquisition, capacity, discovery, and unlearning.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 289bf439-8bfd-4ebc-b1ed-e89f377d2b67Cited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on94
- Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTKevin Meng, David Bau, Alex Andonian, Yonatan BelinkovNeurIPS 2022 · 3,415 citations
- Do Transformers Really Perform Badly for Graph Representation?Chengxuan Ying, Tianle Cai, Shengjie Luo, Shuxin Zheng et al.NeurIPS 2021 · 1,632 citations
- STaR: Bootstrapping Reasoning With ReasoningEric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, Noah D. GoodmanNeurIPS 2022 · 1,126 citations
- Faith and Fate: Limits of Transformers on CompositionalityNouha Dziri, Ximing Lu, Melanie Sclar, Xiang Lorraine Li et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 728 citations
- Hopfield Networks is All You NeedHubert Ramsauer, Bernhard Schäfl, Johannes Lehner, Philipp Seidl et al.ICLR 2021 · 620 citations
Related papers
- Co-occurrence is not Factual Association in Language ModelsXiao Zhang, Miao Li, Ji WuNeurIPS 2024 · 15 citations
- Do Neural Operators Forget Geometry? The Forgetting Hypothesis in Deep Operator LearningYanming Xia, Angelica Aviles-RiveroICML 2026
- Understanding Factual Recall in Transformers via Associative MemoriesEshaan Nichani, Jason D. Lee, Alberto BiettiICLR 2025
- Do LLMs dream of elephants (when told not to)? Latent concept association and associative memory in transformersYibo Jiang, Goutham Rajendran, Pradeep Ravikumar, Bryon AragamNeurIPS 2024 · 19 citations
- Geometry-Free View Synthesis: Transformers and no 3D PriorsRobin Rombach, Patrick Esser, Björn OmmerICCV 2021 · 115 citations
