Effects of Parameter Norm Growth During Transformer Training: Inductive Bias from Gradient Descent
William Merrill, Vivek Ramanujan, Yoav Goldberg, Roy Schwartz, Noah A. Smith
Abstract
The capacity of neural networks like the widely adopted transformer is known to be very high. Evidence is emerging that they learn successfully due to inductive bias in the training routine, typically a variant of gradient descent (GD). To better understand this bias, we study the tendency for transformer parameters to grow in magnitude ( 2 norm) during training, and its implications for the emergent representations within self attention layers. Empirically, we document norm growth in the training of transformer language models, including T5 during its pretraining. As the parameters grow in magnitude, we prove that the network approximates a discretized network with saturated activation functions. Such "saturated" networks are known to have a reduced capacity compared to the full network family that can be described in terms of formal languages and automata. Our results suggest saturation is a new characterization of an inductive bias implicit in GD of particular interest for NLP. We leverage the emergent discrete structure in a saturated transformer to analyze the role of different attention heads, finding that some focus locally on a small number of positions, while other heads compute global averages, allowing counting. We believe understanding the interplay between these two capabilities may shed further light on the structure of computation within large transformers.
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 72b0932f-15e5-4798-9837-c9d94a68e191Cited by top-tier papers18
- The Expressive Power of Transformers with Chain of ThoughtWilliam Merrill, Ashish SabharwalICLR 2024 · 243 citations
- Why Transformers Need Adam: A Hessian PerspectiveYushun Zhang, Congliang Chen, Tian Ding, Ziniu Li et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 149 citations
- A Logic for Expressing Log-Precision TransformersWilliam Merrill, Ashish SabharwalNeurIPS 2023 · 87 citations
- Masked Hard-Attention Transformers Recognize Exactly the Star-Free LanguagesAndy Yang, David Chiang, Dana AngluinNeurIPS 2024 · 58 citations
- Training Compute-Optimal Protein Language ModelsXingyi Cheng, Bo Chen, Pan Li, Jing Gong et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 44 citations
Builds on8
- Are Transformers universal approximators of sequence-to-sequence functions?Chulhee Yun, Srinadh Bhojanapalli, Ankit Singh Rawat, Sashank J. Reddi et al.ICLR 2020 · 481 citations
- Gradient Descent Maximizes the Margin of Homogeneous Neural NetworksKaifeng Lyu, Jian LiICLR 2020 · 402 citations
- An Exponential Learning Rate Schedule for Deep LearningZhiyuan Li, Sanjeev AroraICLR 2020 · 267 citations
- Implicit Regularization in Deep Learning May Not Be Explainable by NormsNoam Razin, Nadav CohenNeurIPS 2020 · 178 citations
- Predicting Inductive Biases of Pre-Trained ModelsCharles Lovering, Rohan Jha, Tal Linzen, Ellie PavlickICLR 2021 · 70 citations
Related papers
- Anatomy of Massive Activations and Attention SinksShangwen Sun, Alfredo Canziani, Yann LeCun, Jiachen ZhuICML 2026
- A distributional simplicity bias in the learning dynamics of transformersRiccardo Rende, Federica Gerace, Alessandro Laio, Sebastian GoldtNeurIPS 2024 · 30 citations
- Inductive Biases and Variable Creation in Self-Attention MechanismsBenjamin L. Edelman, Surbhi Goel, Sham M. Kakade, Cyril ZhangICML 2022 · 154 citations
- Saddle-to-Saddle Dynamics Explains A Simplicity Bias Across Neural Network ArchitecturesYedi Zhang, Andrew M. Saxe, Peter E. LathamICLR 2026 · 15 citations
- Neural Redshift: Random Networks are not Random FunctionsDamien Teney, Armand Mihai Nicolicioiu, Valentin Hartmann, Ehsan AbbasnejadCVPR 2024 · 7 citations
