Abstract:Since its inception in "Attention Is All You Need", transformer architecture has led to revolutionary advancements in NLP. The attention layer within the transformer admits a sequence of input tokens $X$ and makes them interact through pairwise similarities computed as softmax$(XQK^\top X^\top)$, where $(K,Q)$ are the trainable key-query parameters. In this work, we establish a formal equivalence between the optimization geometry of self-attention and a hard-margin SVM problem that separates optimal input tokens from non-optimal tokens using linear constraints on the outer-products of token pairs. This formalism allows us to characterize the implicit bias of 1-layer transformers optimized with gradient descent: (1) Optimizing the attention layer with vanishing regularization, parameterized by $(K,Q)$, converges in direction to an SVM solution minimizing the nuclear norm of the combined parameter $W=KQ^\top$. Instead, directly parameterizing by $W$ minimizes a Frobenius norm objective. We characterize this convergence, highlighting that it can occur toward locally-optimal directions rather than global ones. (2) Complementing this, we prove the local/global directional convergence of gradient descent under suitable geometric conditions. Importantly, we show that over-parameterization catalyzes global convergence by ensuring the feasibility of the SVM problem and by guaranteeing a benign optimization landscape devoid of stationary points. (3) While our theory applies primarily to linear prediction heads, we propose a more general SVM equivalence that predicts the implicit bias with nonlinear heads. Our findings are applicable to arbitrary datasets and their validity is verified via experiments. We also introduce several open problems and research directions. We believe these findings inspire the interpretation of transformers as a hierarchy of SVMs that separates and selects optimal tokens.

Transformers are Expressive, But Are They Expressive Enough for Regression?

Simplicity Bias in Transformers and their Ability to Learn Sparse Boolean Functions

On the Ability and Limitations of Transformers to Recognize Formal Languages

Your Transformer May Not be as Powerful as You Expect

Why are Sensitive Functions Hard for Transformers?

Representational Strengths and Limitations of Transformers

Transformers are Universal In-context Learners

Why transformers are obviously good models of language

Do Transformers know symbolic rules, and would we know if they did?

Better Explain Transformers by Illuminating Important Information

The Topos of Transformer Networks

Introduction to Transformers: an NLP Perspective

The Explainability of Transformers: Current Status and Directions

Transformers are uninterpretable with myopic methods: a case study with bounded Dyck grammars

Can Transformers Learn to Solve Problems Recursively?

Transformers as Support Vector Machines

Understanding the Expressive Power and Mechanisms of Transformer for Sequence Modeling

An Introduction to Transformers

Analyzing Transformers in Embedding Space

What Formal Languages Can Transformers Express? A Survey

On the Expressive Power of a Variant of the Looped Transformer