Re:Attention at Constant Cost per Token via Symmetry-Aware T...
by fheinsen on Wednesday February 04, 2026 @01:47PM
(#46889911)
Yes, there must be a connection. While adaptive truncation may prove impractical, it should be possible to measure spectral statistics on sample data, and specify a different fixed truncation order per layer, per head, etc. The github repository lists many other possible improvements: https://github.com/glassroom/sata_attention#proof-of-concept
Re:Attention at Constant Cost per Token via Symmetry-Aware T...
by charleshmartin on Wednesday February 04, 2026 @09:14PM
(#46894789)
Right. If the dynamics of training are governed by RG flow, then the best optimization path should remove redundant directions, as specified by the RG operator(s)
I wonder if there's a connection to your Taylor truncation order. In RG terms, higher-order polynomial interactions are "irrelevant operators"—they get suppressed as you flow toward the fixed point. If trained attention heads are sitting near this fixed point, that might explain why modest truncation orders work: the network has already learned to concentrate its computation in the lower-order terms. A testable prediction: layers with α closer to 2 (measurable via weightwatcher https://github.com/CalculatedContent/WeightWatcher) might need fewer Taylor terms for accurate approximation than layers with α far from 2. If true, you could potentially use the spectral statistics to adaptively choose truncation order per-head.