Where does Absolute Position come from in decoder-only Transformers?

Transformers with relative positional encodings often extrapolate to sequences longer than those seen during training, whereas transformers with learned absolute encodings typically do not. This is a robust empirical regularity, and the explanations offered for it so far are chiefly about expressivity, that is, about whether a length-generalizing solution exists. We give an optimization explanation. On a minimal fixed-offset retrieval task that isolates positional selection, the gap is governed by the implicit bias of the trained attention head: among the many solutions that fit short sequences, which one gradient descent actually selects. We prove that rotary encodings make the attention logit a function of relative offset alone, an exact equivariance, so whatever selection rule is learned at training lengths is reproduced verbatim at every longer length. Learned absolute encodings instead leave out-of-range positions unconstrained, and the trained head pins to a fixed absolute position inside the training range. We characterize the learned rotary rule as a low-rank ``carrier'' kernel aligned with the target offset, and we derive the resulting graceful accuracy decay as an attention-dilution law; both predictions are confirmed across seeds and offsets. A linear-attention control shows the mechanism is specific to softmax: without normalization, training selects a min-norm interpolant that does not extrapolate. The phenomenon, the equivariance, and the carrier all transfer to a multi-layer, multi-head transformer trained on a full-sequence length-generalization task. The account connects the implicit bias of attention, implicit bias for extrapolation in recurrent models, and the learning side of the RASP-L conjecture.

Self-attention models content-dependent interactions between tokens but does not by itself encode token order. Position encoding addresses this limitation by introducing absolute coordinates, relative distances, or position-dependent rotations into Transformer representations and attention scores. This technical survey develops a unified account of sinusoidal and learned absolute position embeddings, Shaw-style relative position representations, Transformer-XL, T5 relative position bias, ALiBi, and Rotary Position Embeddings (RoPE). We derive how RoPE converts absolute position indices into relative phase differences in Query-Key inner products and compare these methods in terms of where position is injected, computational cost, compatibility with KV caching, and length extrapolation. We then examine long-context extensions, including Position Interpolation, RoPE scaling laws, NTK-aware scaling, Dynamic NTK, NTK-by-parts, YaRN, LongRoPE, and LongRoPE2, with emphasis on frequency allocation, attention rescaling, training length, and target context length. We also summarize implementation considerations, evaluation protocols, and position-encoding choices in representative large language models. A central conclusion is that the ability to compute positional features beyond the training length does not imply reliable long-context generalization; context extension must be evaluated through short-context retention, position-wise perplexity, retrieval, reasoning, and long-context code tasks.

Positional encoding (PE) underpins how permutation-invariant Transformers represent sequence order, yet how positional information is processed and stored remains poorly understood. Modern PE methods such as RoPE still struggle on tasks such as long-context understanding or retrieval \cite{chen-etal-2025-hope}. Hence, a better understanding of the internal positional mechanism could help design better PE. Building on evidence that positional and semantic signals occupy nearly orthogonal subspaces in trained Transformers, we modify an encoder Transformer to process three explicitly disentangled streams: semantic, absolute positional (AP) and relative positional (RP), and confine the masked-language-modeling (MLM) objective to the semantic stream. This decoupling enables a clean mechanistic study and yields three take-aways. (1) The isolated AP subspace spontaneously collapses into a low-frequency two-dimensional manifold that captures the structure of the document; (2) Attention heads specialize into structure and semantic-oriented groups, with RP exclusively supporting the latter; (3) Standard positional encodings do not robustly retain macroscopic structure: RoPE and RP only weakly encode it, and entangled AP loses it in the final layers under MLM pressure. The disentangled approach preserves positional encoding, which improves linguistic representation on 49 of the 65 linguistic phenomena of the Flash-Holmes probing benchmark.