Two (narrow) heads are better than (an arbitrarily wide) one
Amanuel Tesfaye, Zeno Kujawa, Rajmohan Rajaraman, Ravi Sundaram
Abstract
In this paper, we establish a dimension-and precision-independent impossibility result for a simplified transformer model. Due to their size, a comprehensive understanding of the internal operations of frontier large language models (LLMs) is beyond the reach of current methods, but research into small and interpretable models has proven successful. We study the representational limits of attention, the core of transformer models, through the lens of the Endpoint Selection Problem (ESP), a simple yet expressive learning task defined over arcs of a directed graph. Our main theoretical results are twofold: (i) 1-head, 1-layer, attention-only transformers cannot solve ESP on any graph containing a cycle, even with unbounded dimension and precision; but, all DAGs (Directed Acyclic Graph) are solvable with zero error (ii) in contrast, a 2-head, 1-layer, attention-only transformer can solve ESP on arbitrary directed graphs with constant embedding dimension and logarithmic precision. Prior lower bounds (Peng et al., 2024; Sanford et al., 2024b) were conditional on bounds on dimension and precision. Through a transformation, we extend our impossibility result from ESP to the much studied 2-hop induction head problem. Further, we uncover a surprising connection to NPcompleteness by showing that the optimal error of the 1-head transformer is exactly related to the size of MAS (Maximum Acyclic Subgraph) and hence inapproximable. Finally, we validate our theory with experiments and observe that gradient-based optimization can reliably find 1-head solutions for DAGs and 2-head solutions for arbitrary graphs with cycles, whereas 1-head models struggle to reach the optimal solution in graphs with cycles. We believe that our techniques are of independent interest and have the potential to establish a new fine-grained hierarchy of transformer architectures, each with greater problem-solving power than the last.
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.
Builds on13
- The Expressive Power of Transformers with Chain of ThoughtWilliam Merrill, Ashish SabharwalICLR 2024 · 243 citations
- Birth of a Transformer: A Memory ViewpointAlberto Bietti, Vivien Cabannes, Diane Bouchacourt, Hervé Jégou et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 182 citations
- Representational Strengths and Limitations of TransformersClayton Sanford, Daniel J. Hsu, Matus TelgarskyNeurIPS 2023 · 162 citations
- How Transformers Learn Causal Structure with Gradient DescentEshaan Nichani, Alex Damian, Jason D. LeeICML 2024 · 117 citations
- Understanding Transformer Reasoning Capabilities via Graph AlgorithmsClayton Sanford, Bahare Fatemi, Ethan Hall, Anton Tsitsulin et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 84 citations
Related papers
- Characterizing the Expressivity of Fixed-Precision Transformer Language ModelsJiaoda Li, Ryan CotterellNeurIPS 2025 · 18 citations
- Transformers Struggle to Learn to SearchAbulhair Saparov, Srushti Ajay Pawar, Shreyas Pimpalgaonkar, Nitish Joshi et al.ICLR 2025
- Transformers need glasses! Information over-squashing in language tasksFederico Barbero, Andrea Banino, Steven Kapturowski, Dharshan Kumaran et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 105 citations
- Quantitative Bounds for Length Generalization in TransformersZachary Izzo, Eshaan Nichani, Jason D. LeeICLR 2026 · 8 citations
- Faith and Fate: Limits of Transformers on CompositionalityNouha Dziri, Ximing Lu, Melanie Sclar, Xiang Lorraine Li et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 728 citations
