We present a theoretical analysis of the Jacobian of an attention block within a transformer, showing that it is governed by the query, key, and value projections that define the attention mechanism. Leveraging this insight, we introduce a method that systematically alters the spectral properties of each attention layer to reduce the Jacobian's condition number, thereby improving the overall conditioning of the attention layers within a transformer network. We empirically show that this improved Jacobian conditioning translates to enhanced performance in practice. Our approach is simple, broadly applicable, and can be easily integrated as a drop-in replacement for a wide range of existing attention mechanisms. We validate its effectiveness across diverse transformer architectures and tasks, demonstrating consistent improvements in performance.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: An illustration of spectrally conditioned self-attention within a transformer layer. At each layer, the self-attention weights WQ , WK , and WV are modified by adding correction terms CQ , CK , and CV , respectively. The correction terms CQ , CK , and CV are initialized before training using Theorem 3.8 and remain fixed throughout training.
Figure 2: Analysis for ViT-B. Left: Average minimum singular value of the query, key, and value projection matrices ( WQ , WK , WV ) and their spectrally conditioned counterparts ( WQ+CQ , WK+CK , WV+CV ) throughout training. Middle: Condition numbers of WQ , WK , and WV , and their spectrally conditioned forms during training. Right: Average condition number of the self-attention Jacobian over the course of training, before and after spectral conditioning, along with the theoretical bound from Equation 10 .
Figure 3: Analysis for XCiT-M. Left: Average minimum singular value of the query, key, and value projection matrices ( WQ , WK , WV ) and their spectrally conditioned counterparts ( WQ+CQ , WK+CK , WV+CV ) throughout training. Middle: Condition numbers of WQ , WK , and WV , and their spectrally conditioned forms during training. Right: Average condition number of the self-attention Jacobian over the course of training, before and after spectral conditioning, along with the theoretical bound from Equation 10 .
ViT-B
DeiT-B
Swin-B
XCiT-M
DaViT-B
Original
80.7 ( ± 0.41)
81.6 ( ± 0.30)
83.4 ( ± 0.28)
82.6 ( ± 0.39)
84.3 ( ± 0.26)
Spec. cond.
81.7 ( ± 0.38)
82.6 ( ± 0.32)
84.1 ( ± 0.25)
83.5 ( ± 0.35)
84.9 ( ± 0.21)
Table 1: Comparison of Vision Transformers with their original attention architecture versus one with spectrally conditioned attention (Spec. cond.), pre-trained on the ImageNet-1k dataset. We report Top-1% classification accuracy. In each case, spectral conditioning improves performance over the original attention mechanism.
Model
APb
AP50b
AP75b
APm
AP50m
AP75m
original
44.9 ( ± 0.33)
66.1 ( ± 0.31)
48.9 ( ± 0.35)
40.1 ( ± 0.29)
63.1 ( ± 0.31)
42.8 ( ± 0.34)
Spec. cond.
45.6 ( ± 0.31)
66.7 ( ± 0.36)
49.6 ( ± 0.32)
40.5 ( ± 0.33)
63.4 ( ± 0.28)
43.3 ( ± 0.32)
Table 2: Performance evaluation of object detection and instance segmentation on the COCO dataset. For each metric, our spectrally conditioned architecture (Spec. cond.) outperforms the original.
Figure 4: Analysis for Nyströmformer on text classification task. Left: Average minimum singular value of the query, key, and value projection matrices ( WQ , WK , WV ) and their spectrally conditioned counterparts ( WQ+CQ , WK+CK , WV+CV ) throughout training. Middle: Condition numbers of WQ , WK , and WV , and their spectrally conditioned forms during training. Right: Average condition number of the attention Jacobian over the course of training, before and after spectral conditioning, along with the theoretical bound from Equation 10 .
Model
ListOps
Text
Retrieval
Image
Pathfinder
Original
37.1 ( ± 0.21)
63.8 ( ± 0.24)
79.8 ( ± 0.26)
39.9 ( ± 0.20)
72.9 ( ± 0.25)
Spec. cond.
37.8 ( ± 0.23)
64.8 ( ± 0.20)
80.6 ( ± 0.27)
40.2 ( ± 0.22)
73.7 ( ± 0.23)
Table 3: Comparison of a Nyströmformer using its original architecture (original) with a Nyströmformer using spectral conditioned attention (Spec. cond.) on the LRA benchmark. We report evaluation accuracy (%). As shown, our methodology consistently improves performance across all tasks.
MNLI
SST-2
STSB
RTE
QNLI
QQP
MRPC
CoLA
Avg.
Original
83.8 ( ± 0.21)
92.3 ( ± 0.18)
86.3 ( ± 0.21)
55.1 ( ± 0.20)
90.1 ( ± 0.23)
87.3 ( ± 0.15)
85.0 ( ± 0.25)
48.9 ( ± 0.26)
78.6
Spec. cond.
84.3 ( ± 0.20)
92.7 ( ± 0.19)
86.6 ( ± 0.22)
55.5 ( ± 0.24)
91.0 ( ± 0.22)
87.5 ( ± 0.23)
86.1 ( ± 0.23)
51.7 ( ± 0.24)
79.4
Table 4: Evaluation of a pre-trained Crammed BERT on the GLUE benchmark using the original architecture (Original) and our spectrally conditioned variant (Spec. cond.). Spectral conditioning improves performance across all tasks.
Appendix figures & tables25 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
λ
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
ViT-B Acc.
80.8
81.1
81.4
81.6
81.7
81.7
81.6
81.5
Appendix
Table 5: Ablation on λ for ViT-B
ViT-B
DeiT-B
Swin-B
XCiT-M
DaViT-B
Original (with only layer norm.)
80.7 ( ± 0.41)
81.6 ( ± 0.30)
83.4 ( ± 0.28)
82.6 ( ± 0.39)
84.3 ( ± 0.26)
Spec. cond. + layer norm.
81.7 ( ± 0.38)
82.6 ( ± 0.32)
84.1 ( ± 0.25)
83.5 ( ± 0.35)
84.9 ( ± 0.21)
Spec. cond. - layer norm.
79.8 ( ± 0.31)
80.4 ( ± 0.33)
80.5 ( ± 0.23)
80.0 ( ± 0.35)
80.3 ( ± 0.21)
Appendix
Table 6: Performance comparison of spectral conditioning with and without layer normalization.
Model
Acc.
Training time (hrs:mins)
ViT-B (original)
80.7
29:29
ViT-B spec. cond. (Thm. 3.5)
82.0
41:38
ViT-B spec. cond. (Thm. 3.8)
81.7
29:33
DeiT-B (original)
81.6
26:16
DeiT-B spec. cond. (Thm. 3.5)
82.9
37:54
DeiT-B spec. cond. (Thm. 3.8)
82.6
26:24
Appendix
Table 7: Comparison of accuracy and training time across transformer variants with spectral conditioning of attention following Theorem 3.5 and Theorem 3.8 .
Memory Aspect
Original Attention
With Spectral Conditioning
Trainable Parameters
3×Dd
3×Dd
Gradient Storage
3×Dd
3×Dd
Correction Matrices ( CQ , CK , CV )
–
negligible (constant scalar)
Activation Memory
3×Nd
3×Nd (no extra tensors)
Appendix
Table 8: Comparison of memory overhead for spectral conditioning relative to standard attention projections.
Operation
FLOPS (Original)
FLOPS (With Spectral Conditioning)
Query projection ( XWQ )
2NDd
2NDd+Nd
Key projection ( XWK )
2NDd
2NDd+Nd
Value projection ( XWV )
2NDd
2NDd+Nd
Total Projection FLOPS
6NDd
6NDd+3Nd
Appendix
Table 9: FLOPS comparison for the forward pass of the attention projection layers with and without spectral conditioning. N denotes the sequence length, D the embedding dimension, and d the projection dimension per head.
Figure 5: Left: Average minimum singular value of the query, key, and value projection matrices ( WQ , WK , WV ) for a ViT-B during training. We plot the mean over five trials and the standard deviation. Right: Average minimum singular value of the corrected query, key, and value projection matrices ( WQ+CQ , WK+CK , WV+CV ) for a ViT-B during training. We plot the mean over five trials and the standard deviation.
Figure 6: Left: Average maximum singular value of the query, key, and value projection matrices ( WQ , WK , WV ) for a ViT-B during training. We plot the mean over five trials and the standard deviation. Right: Average maximum singular value of the corrected query, key, and value projection matrices ( WQ+CQ , WK+CK , WV+CV ) for a ViT-B during training. We plot the mean over five trials and the standard deviation.
Figure 7: Left: Average condition number of the query, key, and value projection matrices ( WQ , WK , WV ) for a ViT-B during training. We plot the mean over five trials and the standard deviation. Right: Average condition number of the corrected query, key, and value projection matrices ( WQ+CQ , WK+CK , WV+CV ) for a ViT-B during training. We plot the mean over five trials and the standard deviation.
Figure 8: Average condition number of the self-attention Jacobian of a ViT-B over the course of training, before and after spectral conditioning, along with the theoretical bound from Equation 10 . We ran five trials with five different random seeds with plots showing the mean and standard deviations.
Figure 9: Left: Average minimum singular value of the query, key, and value projection matrices ( WQ , WK , WV ) for a XCiT-M during training. We plot the mean over five trials and the standard deviation. Right: Average minimum singular value of the corrected query, key, and value projection matrices ( WQ+CQ , WK+CK , WV+CV ) for a XCiT-M during training. We plot the mean over five trials and the standard deviation.
Figure 10: Left: Average maximum singular value of the query, key, and value projection matrices ( WQ , WK , WV ) for a XCiT-M during training. We plot the mean over five trials and the standard deviation. Right: Average maximum singular value of the corrected query, key, and value projection matrices ( WQ+CQ , WK+CK , WV+CV ) for a XCiT-M during training. We plot the mean over five trials and the standard deviation.
Figure 11: Left: Average condition number of the query, key, and value projection matrices ( WQ , WK , WV ) for a XCiT-M during training. We plot the mean over five trials and the standard deviation. Right: Average condition number of the corrected query, key, and value projection matrices ( WQ+CQ , WK+CK , WV+CV ) for a XCiT-M during training. We plot the mean over five trials and the standard deviation.
Figure 12: Average condition number of the self-attention Jacobian of a XCiT-M over the course of training, before and after spectral conditioning, along with the theoretical bound from Equation 10 . We ran five trials with five different random seeds with plots showing the mean and standard deviations.
Model
APb
AP50b
AP75b
APm
AP50m
AP75m
Swin-base
45.9
67.1
50.1
41.1
63.7
43.8
Spec. cond. Swin-base
46.8
68.1
50.7
41.8
64.2
44.6
Appendix
Table 10: Comparison of Swin-base and spectrally conditioned (spec. cond.) Swin-base on COCO benchmarks.
λ
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Acc.
63.7
64.1
64.3
64.6
64.8
64.8
64.7
64.7
Appendix
Table 11: Ablation on λ for Nyströmformer on text classification task.
Acc.(%)
Original (with only layer norm.)
63.8 ( ± 0.24)
Spec. cond. + layer norm.
64.8 ( ± 0.20)
Spec. cond. - layer norm
62.3 ( ± 0.23)
Appendix
Table 12: Comparing spectral conditioning with and without layer normalization for the Nyströmformer on text classification.
Figure 13: Left: Average minimum singular value of the query, key, and value projection matrices ( WQ , WK , WV ) for a Nyströmformer on the text classification task during training. We plot the mean over five trials and the standard deviation. Right: Average minimum singular value of the corrected query, key, and value projection matrices ( WQ+CQ , WK+CK , WV+CV ) for a Nyströmformer on the text classification during training. We plot the mean over five trials and the standard deviation.
Figure 14: Left: Average maximum singular value of the query, key, and value projection matrices ( WQ , WK , WV ) for a Nyströmformer on the text classification task during training. We plot the mean over five trials and the standard deviation. Right: Average maximum singular value of the corrected query, key, and value projection matrices ( WQ+CQ , WK+CK , WV+CV ) for a Nyströmformer on the text classification during training. We plot the mean over five trials and the standard deviation.
Figure 15: Left: Average condition number of the query, key, and value projection matrices ( WQ , WK , WV ) for a Nyströmformer on the text classification task during training. We plot the mean over five trials and the standard deviation. Right: Average condition number of the corrected query, key, and value projection matrices ( WQ+CQ , WK+CK , WV+CV ) for a Nyströmformer on the text classification task during training. We plot the mean over five trials and the standard deviation.
Figure 16: Average condition number of the self-attention Jacobian of a Nyströmformer on the text classification task over the course of training, before and after spectral conditioning, along with the theoretical bound from Equation 10 . We ran five trials with five different random seeds with plots showing the mean and standard deviations.
Figure 17: Analysis for Nyströmformer on listops task. Left: Average minimum singular value of the query, key, and value projection matrices ( WQ , WK , WV ) and their spectrally conditioned counterparts ( WQ+CQ , WK+CK , WV+CV ) throughout training. Middle: Condition numbers of WQ , WK , and WV , and their spectrally conditioned forms during training. Right: Average condition number of the attention Jacobian over the course of training, before and after spectral conditioning, along with the theoretical bound from Equation 10 .
Figure 18: Left: Average minimum singular value of the query, key, and value projection matrices ( WQ , WK , WV ) for a Nyströmformer on the listops task during training. We plot the mean over five trials and the standard deviation. Right: Average minimum singular value of the corrected query, key, and value projection matrices ( WQ+CQ , WK+CK , WV+CV ) for a Nyströmformer on the listops task during training. We plot the mean over five trials and the standard deviation.
Figure 19: Left: Average maximum singular value of the query, key, and value projection matrices ( WQ , WK , WV ) for a Nyströmformer on the listops task during training. We plot the mean over five trials and the standard deviation. Right: Average maximum singular value of the corrected query, key, and value projection matrices ( WQ+CQ , WK+CK , WV+CV ) for a Nyströmformer on the listops task during training. We plot the mean over five trials and the standard deviation.
Figure 20: Left: Average condition number of the query, key, and value projection matrices ( WQ , WK , WV ) for a Nyströmformer on the listops task during training. We plot the mean over five trials and the standard deviation. Right: Average condition number of the corrected query, key, and value projection matrices ( WQ+CQ , WK+CK , WV+CV ) for a Nyströmformer on the listops task during training. We plot the mean over five trials and the standard deviation.
Figure 21: Average condition number of the self-attention Jacobian of a Nyströmformer on the listops task over the course of training, before and after spectral conditioning, along with the theoretical bound from Equation 10 . We ran five trials with five different random seeds with plots showing the mean and standard deviations.
Central to the success of Transformers is the attention block, which effectively models global dependencies among input tokens associated to a dataset. However, we theoretically demonstrate that standard attention mechanisms in transformers often produce ill-conditioned matrices with large condition numbers. This ill-conditioning is a well-known obstacle for gradient-based optimizers, leading to inefficient training. To address this issue, we introduce preconditioned attention, a novel approach that incorporates a conditioning matrix into each attention head. Our theoretical analysis shows that this method significantly reduces the condition number of attention matrices, resulting in better-conditioned matrices that improve optimization. Conditioned attention serves as a simple drop-in replacement for a wide variety of attention mechanisms in the literature. We validate the effectiveness of preconditioned attention across a diverse set of transformer applications, including image classification, object detection, instance segmentation, long sequence modeling and language modeling.
Hemanth Saratchandran
Australian Institute for Machine Learning (AIML), Adelaide University
Transformers are a dominant architecture in modern machine learning, powering applications across vision, language, and beyond. At the core of their success lies the attention layer, where the query, key, and value matrices determine how token dependencies are captured. While considerable work has focused on scaling and optimizing Transformers, comparatively little attention has been paid to how the weights of the queries, keys and values are initialized. Common practice relies on random initialization or alternatives such as mimetic initialization, which imitates weight patterns from converged models, and weight selection, which transfers weights from a teacher model. In this paper, we argue that initialization can introduce an optimization bias that fundamentally shapes training dynamics. We propose conditioned initialization, a principled scheme that initializes attention weights to improve the spectral properties of the attention layer. Theoretically, we show that conditioned initialization can potentially reduce the condition number of the attention Jacobian, leading to more stable optimization. Empirically, it accelerates convergence and improves generalization across diverse applications, highlighting conditioning as a critical yet underexplored area for advancing Transformer performance. Importantly, conditioned initialization is simple to apply and integrates seamlessly into a wide range of Transformer architectures.
Hemanth Saratchandran, Simon Lucey
Australian Institute for Machine Learning Adelaide University
We develop a sensitivity analysis for transformer attention in a geometry aligned with tokenwise computation. Our main result is the exact identity ∥Jτ(u)∥∞→1=θ(p)/τ for the Jacobian Jτ(u) of the tempered softmax u↦softmax(u/τ), where θ(p)=4maxS⊆[L]p(S)(1−p(S)) measures how evenly the attention distribution can be bisected rather than how concentrated it is. We combine this identity with a block-∞/RMS norm under which row-stochastic attention mixing is nonexpansive. This yields a distribution-aware local Jacobian bound for multi-head attention and a sequence-length-independent Lipschitz bound on bounded input sets, with explicit dependence on width, input magnitude, temperature, and projection norms. We also identify a structural distinction between normalization placements: a pre-LN residual-sublayer Jacobian contains an additive identity term, whereas a post-LN residual-sublayer Jacobian does not. A LayerNorm projection lemma gives a sufficient condition under which the LayerNorm-only term in the post-LN expansion contracts geometrically; the condition is not tested by our experiments. Across three Pre-LN early-training runs of 774M-parameter models, attention becomes substantially more concentrated while the median lower-bound certificate for θ(p) remains near one at every sampled layer and checkpoint. This certifies near-maximal exact sensitivity for at least half of the sampled rows within each layer. A minority of rows enters a dominant-atom regime with lower exact sensitivity, consistent with the deterministic relationship between pmax and θ(p).
Seyed Morteza Emadi
UNC-Chapel Hill, Kenan-Flagler Business School Chapel Hill, NC, USA