Analogies between Transformer Layers and Power Method

Transformers have achieved remarkable success across a wide range of applications, and a growing body of work suggests that part of their strength comes from their ability to learn and execute algorithmic procedures. However, our understanding of how transformers learn such algorithms remains limited, especially in the presence of layer normalization (LN). In this work, we study principal component prediction as a concrete testbed for understanding the training dynamics of transformers with LN. We prove that a looped linear transformer with LN, trained by gradient descent, converges to a solution that implements the power method, with each self-attention layer performing one power iteration. Notably, the model is trained only for principal component prediction, rather than being explicitly supervised to implement the power method. Our finding thus reveals an "algorithmic implicit bias" of looped transformers with LN: principal-component prediction can in principle be achieved by many mechanisms, yet gradient descent selects one that realizes the power method. We further provide a concrete comparison between transformers with and without LN: even with layerwise guidance from power iterations, a transformer without LN cannot exactly learn the power method, whereas the corresponding transformer with LN can, leading to a provable performance gap in principal component prediction. Our results provide, to our knowledge, the first theoretical analysis of the training dynamics of looped and single-layer transformers with LN, and shed light on the role of LN in transformer models.

Pretrained transformers sit near singular minima of the loss, where the Fisher information metric degenerates along dead directions: directions in parameter space along which the directional Fisher vanishes. Locating such a direction normally needs a forward pass and an eigendecomposition of activations, or a sampling-based complexity estimate; none returns a direction computable from the network's parameters alone. We give one, for LayerNorm transformers. The inverse-scale direction $γ^{-1}/\|γ^{-1}\|$ of the LayerNorm affine is an exact algebraic kernel of the post-final-norm centred activation covariance, for any input distribution, and induces a corresponding dead direction in parameter space. It is read from the LN scale parameter alone, with no forward or backward pass and no eigensolve: the cheapest dead-direction read, specific to LayerNorm. We test it on $14$ pretrained transformers ($9$ LayerNorm, $5$ RMSNorm; $160$M-$35$B; language and vision objectives). At random initialisation the predicted direction matches the measured bottom singular direction (one forward pass, direct SVD) to four decimal places on $9/9$ LayerNorm models, and is correctly absent on $5/5$ RMSNorm models, which lack the mean-subtraction projector that creates it. On the trained checkpoint the covariance eigenvalue along this direction deepens by ${\sim}10^3\times$ and further dead directions open; the random-init-to-trained gap is a one-forward-pass, per-checkpoint readout of singular structure along the predicted coordinate. Two consequences follow in closed form: the residual stream's smallest singular value is preserved block-to-block on $13/14$ transformers measured on their own input distribution, the one exception (Gemma$4$-$31$B) a genuine dead direction the same read pinpoints; and the kernel direction's presence classifies a transformer's normalisation from the parameters alone.

Cross-entropy pretraining and preference alignment update the same transformer weights, but leave geometrically distinct traces. We characterise this asymmetry with a relative-subspace-fraction probe that tracks how weight deltas align with residual-stream activation subspaces and with the prediction subspace defined by the unembedding. Alignment deltas concentrate in the read pathway ($W_Q$, $W_K$), along principal directions of attention-input activations, while remaining near-isotropic in the write pathway ($W_O$, $W_2$) relative to the prediction subspace. We explain this pattern through anisotropic gradient accumulation: updates to a matrix $W$ are sums of outer products $δ_t a_t^\top$, and inherit directional structure from whichever side has concentrated covariance. For read-pathway matrices, this side is the input activation $a_t$, whose covariance is spiked in trained transformers and therefore produces objective-agnostic concentration. For write-pathway matrices, the relevant side is the upstream gradient $δ_t$, whose anisotropy depends on the loss. Cross-entropy supplies the canonical sharp per-sample signal, inducing write-pathway prediction geometry during pretraining; alignment objectives typically add little further write-side concentration. We support this explanation with a within-checkpoint trajectory, a graded contrastive-objective control, and a closed-form rank-1 intervention with matched direction controls, providing causal evidence for the proposed weight-space geometry.