Authors: Yao Chen, Yilong Chen, Yinqi Yang, Junyuan Shang, Zhenyu Zhang, Zefeng Zhang, Shuaiyi Nie, Shuohuan Wang, +4 more
Organizations: Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences · School of Cyber Security, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · Baidu Inc.
Existing approaches to increasing the effective depth of Transformers predominantly rely on parameter reuse, extending computation through recursive execution. Under this paradigm, the network structure remains static along the training timeline, and additional computational depth is uniformly assigned to entire blocks at the parameter level. This rigidity across training time and parameter space leads to substantial computational redundancy during training. In contrast, we argue that depth allocation during training should not be a static preset, but rather a progressively growing structural process. Our systematic analysis reveals a deep-to-shallow maturation trajectory across layers, where high-entropy attention heads play a crucial role in semantic integration. Motivated by this observation, we introduce the Sparse Growing Transformer (SGT). SGT is a training-time sparse depth allocation framework that progressively extends recurrence from deeper to shallower layers via targeted attention looping on informative heads. This mechanism induces structural sparsity by selectively increasing depth only for a small subset of parameters as training evolves. Extensive experiments across multiple parameter scales demonstrate that SGT consistently outperforms training-time static block-level looping baselines under comparable settings, while reducing the additional training FLOPs overhead from approximately 16--20% to only 1--3% relative to a standard Transformer backbone.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Visualization of attention heatmap in low- and high-entropy heads from Qwen3-0.6B. Along the horizontal axis, tokens highlighted in red denote the subset that receives the top 50% of the attention from the final query position (details in Appendix C.3.2 ).
Figure 2: Evolution of Intra-layer Variance in Head-wise Attention Entropy Across Training Steps for Models Pretrained from Scratch (we visualize four representative layers; see Figure 14(b) for detailed results)
Figure 3: The Sparse Growing Transformer (SGT) architecture. It implements Training-Phase Structural Sparsity via a deep-to-shallow progressive growth schedule (Left) and selective high-entropy head looping (Right).
Model
FLOPs
Reasoning & Knowledge ( ↑ )
ARC-E
WG
SIQA
Hella.
OBQA
CSQA
BA
MMLU
Avg
Vanilla (275M)
42.83
44.56
49.57
41.30
30.89
27.40
29.24
22.70
24.80
33.81
Block Loop
51.50 ( +20.24% )
44.74
50.36
41.10
31.85
27.60
29.48
21.80
25.38
34.04
SGT(K=1)
43.46 ( 1.47% )
45.09
51.46
41.40
31.21
28.00
29.16
24.07
25.19
34.48
SGT(K=2)
43.88 ( +2.45% )
45.79
52.33
42.38
31.41
26.80
28.75
24.47
25.45
34.64
SGT(K=3)
44.21 ( +3.22% )
46.32
50.91
41.81
31.43
27.40
28.83
22.37
26.16
34.40
Table 1: Main experimental results. FLOPs denote the total training compute, measured in units of 1018 . The best results at each model scale are shown in bold . K denotes Kmax , the upper bound on the loop depth for the selected loop layers.
Figure 4: Comparative convergence trajectories of training perplexity (PPL) versus cumulative training FLOPs for the 573M model scale.
Loop Component
FLOPs ( ×1018 )
Perplexity ↓
Vanilla
87.41
23.973
Layer 2
Block Loop
92.20 (+5.48%)
23.560 (-0.413)
Attention Loop
89.01 (+1.83%)
23.503 (-0.470)
High-Ent. Loop
87.74 (+0.38%)
23.452 (-0.521)
Low-Ent. Loop
87.74 (+0.38%)
23.502 (-0.471)
Table 2: Ablation study of different loop components at varying layer depths. We report total training FLOPs (in units of 1018 ) and perplexity (PPL) on the validation set, where lower is better. High-Ent. Loop denotes looping the top-2 highest-entropy heads, while Low-Ent. Loop denotes looping the top-2 lowest-entropy heads.
Method
CSQA
SIQA
SCIQ
MMLUSTEM
Avg
Vanilla
29.24
41.86
71.00
26.28
42.10
S2D
30.39
41.40
71.80
27.40
42.75
D2S (Ours)
31.29
42.22
72.00
28.46
43.49
Table 3: Ablation study on growth direction. Experiments are conducted on the 573M model with SGT ( K=1 ) configuration. D2S denotes deep-to-shallow growth, while S2D represents shallow-to-deep growth.
Figure 5: Attention entropy dynamics of two heads in Layer 6 during training, including the warm-up phase and layer selection phase, for models trained with D2S and S2D strategies (more visualizations in Figure 15 ).
Setting
Vanilla
Block Loop
High-Ent. Loop
1024 × 1
24.21
24.18 ( −0.03 )
24.16 ( −0.05 )
1024 × 2
57.38
58.80 ( +1.42 )
56.62 ( −0.76 )
1024 × 3
116.94
119.48 ( +2.54 )
111.66 ( −5.28 )
1024 × 4
180.70
175.05 ( −5.65 )
171.90 ( −8.80 )
Table 4: Long Context Extrapolation Results (PPL). Setting denotes the sequence length for extrapolation evaluation. The configurations for High-Ent. Loop and Block Loop follow the Layer 2 settings in Table 2 .
Figure 6: Attention contribution flow across loops in a high-entropy head (Layer 2, Head 15). Each cell shows the weighted attention contribution Cj=AN,j⋅∥Vj∥2 from the final token to position j , with color intensity indicating magnitude. Red and blue borders mark tokens with the largest contribution increase and decrease from Loop 0 to Loop 2, respectively. Arrows with percentage labels denote inter-loop changes. The visualization shows attention progressively shifting from syntactic elements toward task-critical and answer-relevant tokens.
Appendix figures & tables15 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Benchmarks
Avg. Input Length
Mathematical Reasoning
AIME Balunović et al. (2025)
160 tokens
MATH-500 Lightman et al. (2023)
89 tokens
GSM8K Cobbe et al. (2021)
78 tokens
General Knowledge QA
MMLU Hendrycks et al. (2020)
117 tokens
Appendix
Table 5: Overview of the 11 diverse reasoning benchmarks, categorized by task family, used for analyzing the model’s attention entropy. The tasks span various domains and sequence lengths.
Model
layers
heads
hidden size
intermediate size
Qwen3-0.6B-Base
28
16
1024
3072
LLaMA3.2-1B-Base
16
32
2048
8192
Qwen3-1.7B-Base
28
16
2048
6144
Appendix
Table 6: Architectural hyperparameters of three representative open-source models used in our observational study of Section 3 . heads denotes the number of query heads.
Figure 7: Layer-wise attention entropy across 11 diverse tasks for three open-source models (details in Appendix C.1 and C.2.1 ).
Figure 8: Layer–head attention entropy pattern of Qwen3-0.6B and Qwen3-1.7B. The x-axis denotes the head index, and the y-axis denotes the layer index (details in Appendix C.1 and C.2.2 ).
Figure 9: Layer–head attention entropy pattern of LLaMA3.2-1B-Base. The x-axis denotes the head index, and the y-axis denotes the layer index (details in Appendix C.1 and C.2.2 ).
Mask Settings
Original
High-Entropy
Low-Entropy
Random Heads (Various Seeds)
Model
Heads
Heads
Set 1
Set 2
Set 3
Set 4
Masked Heads
-
L1-H1, L1-H7 L1-H12, L2-H6
L4-H9, L25-H2 L28-H4
L4-H1, L4-H5 L4-H12, L21-H8
L2-H5, L2-H6 L2-H8, L10-H4
L1-H9, L4-H8 L21-H8
L2-H5, L10-H15 L23-H12
MATH-500
27.0
5.0 ↓81.5%
25.0 ↓7.4%
20.0 ↓25.9%
24.0 ↓11.1%
25.0 ↓7.4%
23.0 ↓14.8%
GSM8K
32.0
7.0 ↓78.1%
29.0 ↓9.4%
37.0 ↑15.6%
32.0 ±0.0%
32.0 ±0.0%
27.0 ↓15.6%
MMLU
50.5
18.0 ↓64.4%
46.0 ↓8.9%
45.5 ↓9.9%
47.0 ↓6.9%
46.0 ↓8.9%
50.5 ±0.0%
NarrativeQA
13.7
11.0 ↓19.7%
14.2 ↑3.7%
13.6 ↓0.7%
12.2 ↓11.0%
12.6 ↓8.0%
14.5 ↑5.8%
Appendix
Table 7: Impact of head masking on Qwen3-0.6B-Base performance across reasoning and long-context tasks. The Original Model column represents the unmasked model baseline. Mask Settings compare the removal of High-Entropy heads against Low-Entropy and four groups of Random head baselines. The specific indices of removed heads are detailed in the Masked Heads row, denoted as L x -H y (Layer x , Head y , 1-indexed). Cells report absolute performance scores and the relative percentage change compared to the Original Model (details in Appendix C.3.1 and C.3.3 ).
Figure 10: Layer-wise Attention Entropy at Different Training Steps. The horizontal axis represents the model’s layer index. Each line shows the entropy distribution recorded at 250-step intervals during the early stages of training (details in Appendix C.4 ).
Model Setting
OLMo-275M
OLMo-573M
OLMo-1.2B
hidden size
768
1024
1536
intermediate size
6144
8192
12288
attention heads
12
16
16
layers
12
16
16
Appendix
Table 8: Detailed architecture configurations for the three model scales (275M, 573M, and 1.2B) pre-trained from scratch in our main experiments. We pre-train models from scratch at three scales using the OLMo framework. All models adopt the LLaMA architecture with Multi-Head Attention (MHA).
Model
ARC-E
WG
SIQA
Vanilla
44.56
49.57
41.30
Block Loop
44.74
50.36
41.10
SGT ( tstart=Δt=500 )
45.26
50.91
41.56
SGT ( tstart=Δt=250 )
45.09
51.46
41.40
SGT ( tstart=Δt=100 )
45.44
51.62
41.97
Appendix
Table 9: Analysis of growth schedule parameters ( tstart and Δt ) for the 275M model.
Batch
Model
Prefill TPS
Decode TPS
1
Vanilla (275M)
14381.0
127.9
SGT (275M)
13805.7
122.7
Block Loop (275M)
11504.8
102.3
Vanilla (573M)
10969.2
100.5
SGT (573M)
10718.0
98.2
Block Loop (573M)
9237.2
84.6
Appendix
Table 10: Inference throughput comparison (tokens/s) under different batch sizes. Prefill throughput measures tokens processed during context encoding (KV cache construction), while decode throughput measures autoregressive token generation speed.
Figure 11: Attention contribution flow across loops in a high-entropy head (Layer 2, Head 15). Each cell shows the weighted attention contribution Cj=AN,j⋅∥Vj∥2 from the final token to position j , with color intensity indicating magnitude. Red and blue borders mark tokens with the largest contribution increase and decrease from Loop 0 to Loop 2, respectively. Arrows with percentage labels denote inter-loop changes. The visualization shows attention progressively shifting from syntactic elements toward task-critical and answer-relevant tokens.
Figure 12: Visualization of attention heatmap in low- and high-entropy heads from Qwen3-0.6B, with a sample from MATH-500. Along the horizontal axis, tokens highlighted in red denote the subset that receives the top 50% of the attention from the final query position (details in Appendix C.3.1 and C.3.2 ).
Figure 13: Visualization of attention heatmap in low- and high-entropy heads from Qwen3-0.6B, with a sample from MMLU. Along the horizontal axis, tokens highlighted in red denote the subset that receives the top 50% of the attention from the final query position (details in Appendix C.3.1 and C.3.2 ).
Figure 14: (a) Head-wise attention entropy trajectories across all layers during training . Within each layer-specific subplot, individual curves correspond to distinct attention heads. (b) Intra-layer variance of attention entropy across heads over the course of training (details in Appendix C.4 ) .
Figure 15: Attention entropy dynamics of Layer 6 heads during training, including the warm-up phase (steps 0–250) and layer selection phase (steps 250–1000), for models trained with D2S and S2D strategies in Table 3 .
Looped Transformers scale sequential computation by applying a compact stack of physical blocks for multiple rounds, increasing unrolled depth without increasing stored parameters. This reuse changes the residual-scaling problem: in an untied Transformer, each residual branch receives and applies its own parameter update, whereas in a looped Transformer one shared update aggregates gradients from repeated visits and is read back by those same visits in the next linearized forward pass. We formalize this tied-depth effect through a first-order perturbation bound controlled by a visit-alignment coefficient κR. The bound recovers the DeepNorm exponent when visits decorrelate, but in the conservative aligned regime it requires the exponent to increase from 1/4 to 1/2 as loop count grows at fixed physical depth. The resulting method, DeepLoop, keeps the Post-LN DeepNorm architecture and sets α=(2N)1/2 and β=(8N)−1/2 for unrolled depth N. On GPT-style looped language models at GPT-2 small and GPT-2 medium scale, DeepLoop is neutral when no physical block is revisited and improves validation loss and downstream accuracy once recurrent depth is activated. These results show that stable recurrent depth requires residual scaling rules that account for parameter visits, not only nominal layer count.
Shuzhen Li, Yifan Zhang, Jiacheng Guo +2
Princeton University · University of California, Los Angeles
Multi-head attention conventionally partitions the hidden dimension equally across all heads at every layer, enforcing an identical representational subspace dimension (dh = dmodel/h) throughout the models depth. In this work, we identify this uniform allocation as a fundamental structural bottleneck: due to their restricted dimensional space, early-layer heads are unable to faithfully capture complex, high-dimensional contextual patterns. To resolve this, we introduce the Prism Transformer, a novel architectural paradigm that replaces the static, uniform head configuration with a progressive head schedule. By monotonically increasing the head count across layers, the Prism Transformer naturally establishes a local-to-global representational hierarchy: early layers leverage fewer, exceptionally wide heads to capture complex, local compositional patterns, while deep layers deploy many, narrow heads to decompose these patterns into specialized linguistic features. Crucially, this structural shift is parameter-neutral, compute-neutral, and introduces zero training or inference overhead, preserving identical weight matrices and FLOP budgets as the standard Transformer. Across three model scales (124M, 354M, and 757M), the Prism Transformer consistently outperforms uniform baselines, achieving consistent reductions in validation loss alongside consistent gains on downstream zero-shot benchmarks (including PIQA, HellaSwag, ARC-Easy, and WinoGrande). Our findings demonstrate that non-uniform subspace allocation unlocks latent capacity within the standard Transformer budget, enabling more effective use of model capacity.
Deep Transformers are composed of uniformly stacked residual blocks, yet their deepest layers often add little value. We present two efficiency methods that exploit this asymmetry. CascadeFormer tapers width with depth to match the uneven information flow across layers, achieving comparable perplexity to a uniform baseline at the same training budget while reducing latency by 8.6% and increasing throughput by 9.4%. CascadeFlow Pruning removes layers using accumulated training gradients, with no post hoc analysis. It outperforms standard heuristics on perplexity and rank-stability and stays competitive on downstream accuracy. To motivate these methods, we propose Gradient Fan-in Asymmetry (GFA) as a structural account of why deeper layers contribute less. In Pre-LayerNorm residual stacks, the gradient at a layer is the sum of an identity path and all downstream functional paths, producing a gradient fan-in that decays linearly with depth (and quadratically under deep supervision), yielding richer gradients for early layers and sparser ones for later layers. We provide correlational and interventional evidence for GFA on models trained from scratch up to 1.2B parameters. Across Transformers and ResNets, accumulated training gradients follow the theoretical fan-in and are associated with post hoc layer importance. Two interventions point to structure rather than magnitude as the bottleneck: equalizing per-layer gradient norms does not restore late-layer value, while increasing downstream path counts via parameter-shared repetition restores and elevates it. Whether gradient magnitude proxies fan-in beyond high-rank regimes, and how these dynamics behave at the 100B+ scale, remain open questions.