Partition Function | mcbal

Transformers Are Secretly Collectives of Spin Systems

Tue, 23 Nov 2021 12:17:17 +0100

✨ Update (April 2023): Consider reading where we continue building on the intuition of probing a spin system to engineer its collective response but get rid of the assumption of symmetric coupling matrices by shifting focus from equilibrium free energies to dynamical mean-field approximations of non-equilibrium vector-spin models.

Introduction

In this post, we try to distill a unifying perspective out of ideas developed in a series of longer posts on understanding transformers as physical systems:

We argue that a blueprint of the neural-network architecture of the archetypical transformer module can be derived from the structure of physical spin systems familiar from classical statistical mechanics. More specifically, we claim that the forward pass of transformer modules maps onto computing magnetizations in vector-spin models in response to incoming data. We imagine transformers as collectives of differentiable spin systems whose behavior can be shaped through training.

Where does the transformer module architecture come from?

Taking a bird’s eye view of the evergrowing zoo of transformer architectures in natural language processing and computer vision suggests that the design pattern introduced in ¹ is still dominant. Almost all architectural variations of transformer modules published in the last four years have stuck to a successful combination of residual connections, an attention-like operation (token-mixing), normalization layers, and a feed-forward-like operation (channel-mixing).

Recent work like ² appropriately shifts focus to the high-level architecture of the transformer module and argues that its full structure, rather than just the token-mixing attention operation, is essential for transformers to achieve competitive performance.

So where does this archetypical design pattern come from? Why does it seem to stick around? Is there any physical intuition behind its structure?

Deriving attention from energy functions only gets you so far

Recent papers like ³ and ⁴ have looked for physical intuition behind attention mechanisms using an phrased in terms of modern continuous Hopfield networks. The main idea is to derive the softmax-attention update rule

\begin{equation} \boldsymbol{Q}' = \text{softmax}\left( \frac{\boldsymbol{Q} \boldsymbol{K}^T}{\sqrt{d}} \right) \boldsymbol{K} \end{equation}

by taking a large gradient descent update step using the derivative with respect to input queries $\boldsymbol{Q}$ of some judiciously chosen energy function

\begin{equation} E = \frac{1}{2} \boldsymbol{Q} \boldsymbol{Q}^T -\mathrm{logsumexp} \left( \frac{\boldsymbol{Q} \boldsymbol{K}^T}{\sqrt{d}} \right). \label{eq:logsumexp} \end{equation}

In this way, vanilla softmax attention can be recast as taking a . The energy landscape defined by Eq. \eqref{eq:logsumexp} implements an associative memory system for storing and retrieving vector patterns where queries flow towards valleys associated with their nearest keys (see ):

But there is more to transformer modules than just attention. In practice, we know that residual connections, normalization layers, and feed-forward layers are all essential to achieve good empirical performance.

Can we generalize this physical intuition of taking derivatives with respect to an energy function to recover the full transformer module? Yes, we can. But we have to take a step back from energy functions and focus on their underlying physical systems instead.

Back to the roots: physical spin systems and vector-spin models

Energy functions in classical statistical mechanics are succinct descriptions encoding interactions and constraints in physical systems. Spin systems are prototypical physical systems which often serve as toy models for all kinds of phenomena⁵.

The is a simple toy model describing a classical binary spin system with local spin degrees of freedom at every site pointing either up or down. The energy function of the binary random Ising model for $N$ spins in the presence of a site-dependent external magnetic field is given by

\begin{equation} E = - \sum_{i,j=1}^{N} J_{ij} \sigma_{i} \sigma_{j} - \sum_{i=1}^{N} h_{i} \sigma_{i}, \label{eq:binaryrandomising} \end{equation}

where the $J_{ij}$ encode coupling strengths between all pairs of spins and the external magnetic fields $h_{i}$ act as biases by providing a preferential value of alignment at every site. The model defined by \eqref{eq:binaryrandomising} is also known as a or . A cartoon of this model looks like a graph of little arrows that are pairwise coupled⁶:

At thermal equilibrium, the Boltzmann probability distribution $e^{-\beta E\left( \sigma \right)} / Z$ reflects what patterns of up-down spins, or spin configurations, are preferred. The partition function $Z = \sum_{\sigma} e^{-\beta E\left( \sigma \right)}$ of a spin system is not only a normalization constant but also a magical object relating the microscopic world of fluctuating spins to thermodynamic, observable quantities via the free energy $F = - \beta^{-1} \log Z$. Even for simple spin systems, computing partition functions by summing over all possible configurations is a shockingly hard thing to do in most scenarios.

Binary spin models are nice but rarely excite machine learning practitioners anymore nowadays. Modern neural networks like transformers act on sequences of vectors like token embeddings or image patches. Instead of abandoning spin models altogether, we could consider vector-spin models. Replacing binary degrees of freedom with $d$-dimensional vector degrees of freedom, we can define a spin-model energy function

\begin{align} E = - \sum_{i,j=1}^{N} J_{ij} \; \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{i} \cdot \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{j} - \sum_{i=1}^{N} \boldsymbol{h}_{i} \cdot \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{i}, \label{eq:vectorrandomising} \end{align}

where the scalar products have turned into dot products. Models of this form first popped up in 1960s statistical mechanics literature as . They also appear in recent studies on higher-dimensional generalizations of spin glass models⁷.

Now how can we relate vector-spin systems like Eq. \eqref{eq:vectorrandomising} to modern neural networks?

Why don’t we just probe a vector-spin system with data?

Let’s pursue an intuitive idea. Imagine we want to expose our vector-spin system Eq. \eqref{eq:vectorrandomising} to a sequence of vector data. We can do this by having the sequence act as the spin system’s external magnetic field $(\boldsymbol{h}_{1}, \boldsymbol{h}_{2}, \ldots, \boldsymbol{h}_{N})$. We would then like to observe how the spin system responds to this particular environment of patterns.

If all of the steps in the computation of the spin system’s responses can be implemented in a differentiable way, we should be able to engineer its collective behavior by optimizing the coupling parameters to better respond to future incoming data. We propose to observe spin-system responses in terms of magnetizations computed from free energies.

A slice of statistical mechanics: magnetizations and free energies

For ease of notation, let’s call the model parameters $\theta \equiv \{ J_{ij} \}$, the spins $\sigma \equiv \{ \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{i} \}$, and the external magnetic fields $h \equiv (\boldsymbol{h}_{1}, \boldsymbol{h}_{2}, \ldots, \boldsymbol{h}_{N})$. We can then schematically write our spin system’s partition function as

\begin{align} Z_{\theta} \left( h \right) = \int \mathrm{d} \sigma \ \mathrm{e}^{ - \beta E_{\theta}\left( \sigma, h \right) } \label{eq:partfun} \end{align}

and the corresponding free energy as $F_{\theta} \left( h \right) = - \beta^{-1} \log Z_{\theta} \left( h \right)$.

Magnetizations are responses of our spin system to the external magnetic field imposed by $(\boldsymbol{h}_{1}, \boldsymbol{h}_{2}, \ldots, \boldsymbol{h}_{N})$. From standard thermodynamics, we know that we can calculate magnetizations from the free energy by differentiating with respect to the external field⁸

\begin{align} \boldsymbol{m}_{i} = - \frac{\mathrm{d} F_{\theta} \left( \boldsymbol{h}_{1}, \boldsymbol{h}_{2}, \ldots, \boldsymbol{h}_{N} \right)}{\mathrm{d} \boldsymbol{h}_{i}} = \langle \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{i} \rangle , \label{eq:sigma} \end{align}

which, in this case, boils down to calculating spin expectation values. The magnetization for every site depends on the couplings and, through the couplings between spins, on the values of the external field at all sites. Magnetizations reveal how spins will collectively tend to align themselves when we place the spin system in an environment of patterns.

Before we move on, we have to account for one more complication. If we want to draw a correspondence between transformer modules and vector-spin systems, we will have to allow for couplings that depend on the external magnetic field. For example, the attention matrix in vanilla transformers looks something like

\begin{equation} J_{ij} \left( \boldsymbol{h}_{1}, \boldsymbol{h}_{2}, \ldots, \boldsymbol{h}_{N} \right) = \left[\mathrm{softmax}\left( \frac{\boldsymbol{H} \boldsymbol{W}_{\boldsymbol{Q}} \boldsymbol{W}_{\boldsymbol{K}}^{T} \boldsymbol{H}^{T}}{\sqrt{d}} \right)\right]_{ij}, \label{eq:softmaxcouplings} \end{equation}

where the matrix $\boldsymbol{H}$ denotes the stack of external magnetic field vectors. The interactions between spins are determined dynamically based on the inputs. From a physics perspective, these “amortized” couplings are very weird and highly unusual, but such is the transformer.

The potential dependency of the couplings on the external field changes the magnetization of Eq. \eqref{eq:sigma} to an expression of the form

\begin{align} \boldsymbol{m}_{i} &= - \frac{\mathrm{d} F_{\theta} \left( \boldsymbol{h}_{1}, \boldsymbol{h}_{2}, \ldots, \boldsymbol{h}_{N} \right)}{\mathrm{d} \boldsymbol{h}_{i}} \nonumber \\\\ &= \langle \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{i} \rangle + \sum_{m,n} \langle \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{m} \cdot \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{n} \rangle \frac{\partial J_{mn} \left( \boldsymbol{h}_{1}, \boldsymbol{h}_{2}, \ldots, \boldsymbol{h}_{N} \right) }{ \partial \boldsymbol{h}_{i} } , \label{eq:sigmaweird} \end{align}

where two-point correlation functions are seen to act as weights for the coupling contributions⁹. In practice, we should of course let an automatic differentiation framework keep track of dependencies so that we can get away with simply computing

assuming we have a differentiable expression for the (approximate) free energy available.

Turning a differentiable spin system into a neural network

Let’s now use the ingredients introduced above to construct a neural network module which wraps around a vector-spin system. Given the energy function Eq. \eqref{eq:vectorrandomising} and the free energy $F_{\theta} \left( h \right) = - \beta^{-1} \log \int \mathrm{d} \sigma \ \mathrm{e}^{ - \beta E_{\theta}\left( \sigma, h \right) }$, we let incoming data play the role of the external magnetic field and return magnetizations in response.

Nice. But didn’t we mention before that partition functions (and hence free energies and thus magnetizations) are shockingly hard to compute? Why introduce all these formal expressions if we cannot compute anything?

Looking back at statistical mechanics papers from the 1950s-1970s, it turns out that physicists have already developed several tricks and approximation methods that can be applied to deal with vector-spin systems. Computational evidence that the partition function approach outlined above is possible for vector-spin systems can be found in (below, left) and (below, right).

In these examples, approximations of the partition function Eq. \eqref{eq:partfun} were obtained following respectively a mean-field theory and a steepest-descent approach. Our of both approaches rely internally on to ensure that fixed-point calculations and root-solving steps are efficiently differentiable.

An exercise in squinting: recognizing the transformer module

Computing magnetizations according to Eq. \eqref{eq:magnetization} from the (approximate) free energies obtained in and reveals a high-level structure that is surprisingly familiar: a pattern of residual connections, token-mixing, normalization, and channel-mixing. Approaching the crux from the other direction, we argue that transformer modules react to inputs by implementing particular approximations to the general magnetization response Eq. \eqref{eq:sigmaweird}.

Residual connections are proportional to the inputs and arise from the presence of the external magnetic field. Token-mixing contributions emerge from the coupling terms in the energy function and mix inputs without acting on the local vector-spin dimension. Normalization follows from requiring that the energy of the spin system remain linearly proportional to the number of lattice sites and from normalizing the external magnetic field vectors. Channel-mixing contributions include terms in the magnetization that can be applied locally, like Onsager self-correction terms in mean-field approaches or (approximations to) contributions coming from input-dependent couplings in Eq. \eqref{eq:sigmaweird}.

Taken together, these observations suggest that we can picture the forward pass of a transformer module as a wrapper around a vector-spin system: module inputs are routed to the external magnetic field (and, optionally, to a parametrized couplings function) after which magnetizations are returned as outputs. The transformer module bears an uncanny resemblance to a differentiable physical system whose collective behavior we can control through training.

Training transformer modules shapes collective behavior

Now that we can picture transformer modules as physical spin systems responding to getting probed with data, let’s imagine what training them looks like.

On the level of the energy function of our spin system Eq. \eqref{eq:vectorrandomising}, we can model the training process of a transformer module by introducing a (discrete) time dimension and making the external magnetic field time-dependent, leading to¹⁰

\begin{equation} E(t) = - \sum_{i,j=1}^{N} J_{ij} \; \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{i} \cdot \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{j} - \sum_{i=1}^{N} \boldsymbol{h}_{i}(t) \cdot \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{i} \label{eq:sloppyenergy} \end{equation}

At every training step $t$, a sequence of incoming data $\{ \boldsymbol{h}_{1}(t), \boldsymbol{h}_{2}(t), \ldots, \boldsymbol{h}_{N}(t) \}$ takes on the role of external magnetic field. During the forward pass, magnetizations $\boldsymbol{m}_{i}$ are computed in a differentiable way according to the current model parameters and in the presence of the current external magnetic field. Physically, we consider “quenched” systems with “frozen” couplings at every training step. During the backward pass, the module’s coupling parameters $J_{ij}$ get updated, nudging the interactions in the spin system so as to influence its magnetization responses to similar data in future iterations.

We can think about this training process as gradually shaping the collective behavior of a differentiable vector-spin system that is driven by data. If the couplings depend on the inputs, like in Eq. \eqref{eq:softmaxcouplings}, we should make the couplings time-dependent as well in Eq. \eqref{eq:sloppyenergy}. In that case, the external magnetic fields as well as the parametrized couplings change instantaneously at every training step.

Training deep transformers orchestrates spin-system collectives

Training a deep transformer model corresponds to orchestrating a stack of transformer modules by building up a differentiable structure of correlations where the magnetizations of one spin system drive the next one. Wiggling (billions of) parameters during training nudges the cascading response behavior of the collective of spin systems to better adapt to the collective’s (meta-)tasks as specified by the data and the loss function.

Conclusion

In this post, we argued that the forward pass of a transformer module maps onto computing magnetizations in a vector-spin model responding to data. Generalizing previous work on understanding softmax attention modules in terms of modern continuous Hopfield networks by taking derivatives of a judiciously chosen energy function, we propose to take derivatives of the free energy of a general vector-spin system to get to a blueprint of the architecture of a full transformer module.

By zooming out and approaching transformers from a tangential, statistical-mechanical point of view, we arrived at a physical intuition of transformers that seems hard to obtain when restricting oneself to perpetually perturbing explicit neural network architectures. Recognizing transformer modules as spin models in disguise might not only unify architectural variations as different ways to approximately compute magnetizations but also elucidate the empirical success of transformers in deep learning.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank for hosting its research jams and providing a friendly environment to present ideas.

References & footnotes

If you happen to find this work useful, please consider citing it as:

@article{bal2021isingisallyouneed,
 title = {Transformers Are Secretly Collectives of Spin Systems},
 author = {Bal, Matthias},
 year = {2021},
 month = {November},
 url = {https://mcbal.github.io/post/transformers-are-secretly-collectives-of-spin-systems/}
}

Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin, (2017) ↩︎
Weihao Yu, Mi Luo, Pan Zhou, Chenyang Si, Yichen Zhou, Xinchao Wang, Jiashi Feng, and Shuicheng Yan, (2021) ↩︎
Hubert Ramsauer, Bernhard Schäfl, Johannes Lehner, Philipp Seidl, Michael Widrich, Lukas Gruber, Markus Holzleitner, Milena Pavlović, Geir Kjetil Sandve, Victor Greiff, David Kreil, Michael Kopp, Günter Klambauer, Johannes Brandstetter, and Sepp Hochreiter, (2020) ↩︎
Dmitry Krotov and John Hopfield, (2020) ↩︎
Consider reading the Physics Today article on for an introduction to disordered systems, spin glasses, Ising spin systems, emergent collective computational abilities, associative memories, Hopfield models, and the idea of learning patterns as shaping the behavior of systems. Essentially, what we’re trying to do in this post is figuring out a way to relate modern transformer models back to these old ideas. ↩︎
We plot spin sites at random positions to emphasize that there is no spatial notion of “closeness” in a fully-connected system: every site is just a hop away. To not overload the graph, we only draw connections strongest in absolute value. ↩︎
For example, see and . ↩︎
For example, see the content of Chapter 2 in the by Thierry Giamarchi. ↩︎
In the absence of an explicit expression for the free energy, one of the feed-forward network’s roles might be to try to approximate the complicated dependencies in the magnetization expression Eq. \eqref{eq:sigmaweird}, at the cost of introducing a large amount of additional free parameters beyond just the coupling parameters. It would be interesting to look into this numerically at scale using the free energy expression obtained in . ↩︎
The time-dependence in Eq. \eqref{eq:sloppyenergy} smells of non-equilibrium statistical mechanics. Incoming data might be considered as time-dependent “probes” which inject energy (and useful information if its content is low-entropy enough) into a non-equilibrium system. By nudging its dynamical response behavior across spatiotemporal scales, the system could potentially learn how to deal with being driven by all kinds of patterns in incoming data. For an interesting toy example of such behavior, see by Jeremy England on Low rattling: a principle for understanding driven many-body self-organization. ↩︎

Transformers from Spin Models: Approximate Free Energy Minimization

Tue, 12 Oct 2021 18:40:17 +0100

✨ Update (November 2021): Consider reading for a high-level overview of some of the ideas outlined in this post.

Introduction

✨ TL;DR: We consider transformer modules as wrappers around a differentiable steepest-descent approximation of simple Ising-like vector-spin models familiar from statistical mechanics. We observe that a blueprint of the successful transformer-like architectural pattern of token-mixing (attention) and channel-mixing (feed-forward) naturally emerges when computing spin expectation values in vector-spin models with input-dependent couplings. Feel free to skip to the for a visual comparison of this work to vanilla transformers, deep equilibrium transformers, and deep implicit attention.

✨ Code: A PyTorch implementation of the ideas outlined in this blog post is available in the GitHub repository .

In , we introduced a mean-field theory perspective on transformer modules. We showed how their outputs can be understood as mean-field spin expectation values of simple Ising-like vector-spin systems. Physically, the process of training a transformer module can be understood as driving a classical many-body system with data and iteratively shaping its collective response behaviour through coupling-weight parameter updates. Stacking transformer modules corresponds to building up a differentiable structure of correlations by using the spin expectation values of one physical system to drive the next one.

In this post, we flesh out the idea of looking at transformer modules as physical systems. Having identified vector spin systems as plausible physical models underlying transformers, we turn to 1960s statistical-mechanics literature to look for inspiration on how to deal with their partition functions¹. We rediscover that the partition function of a particular class of vector-spin models can be approximated in the limit of large local spin dimension using steepest descent, leading to approximate yet tractable expressions for the free energy and other derived quantities.

Combining these canonical results from statistical mechanics with modern differentiable programming, we implement a differentiable vector-spin model based on an approximate free-energy minimization algorithm. Internally, the model uses an implicit layer to solve for the stationary point of the partition function in a differentiable way. We then construct a transformer-like attention module which encapsulates the spin model by routing inputs to applied magnetic fields and spin expectation values to outputs. The latter are obtained by following the familiar recipe of statistical mechanics: differentiating the spin model’s $\log Z$ with respect to conjugate input variables. Finally, we contextualize our approach by comparing it to vanilla transformers, deep equilibrium transformers, and deep implicit attention.

Massaging partition functions

In this section, we set out to derive an approximate, analytical expression for the free energy of a classical disordered vector-spin system exposed to a site-dependent external magnetic field. In deriving the results below, we found inspiration in H. E. Stanley’s and Chapter 5 of R. J. Baxter’s bible on .

A vector-spin model and its partition function

We start from the following Hamiltonian (or energy function) of a classical vector spin system of $N$ spins in a site-dependent external magnetic field,

\begin{equation} E = - \sum_{i,j=1}^{N} J_{ij} \; \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{i} \cdot \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{j} - \sum_{i=1}^{N} \boldsymbol{h}_{i} \cdot \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{i}, \label{eq:vectrandomising} \end{equation}

where both $\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{i} = \left[ \sigma_{1}(i), \sigma_{2}(i), \ldots, \sigma_{D}(i) \right]$ and $\boldsymbol{h}_{i} = \left[ h_{1}(i), h_{2}(i), \ldots, h_{D}(i) \right]$ are vectors of dimension $D$. The coupling matrix $\boldsymbol{J}$ is assumed to be traceless and symmetric but can otherwise have real elements with both negative and positive signs. We take the vector degrees of freedom $\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{i}$ to be constrained by a set of $N$ constraints

\begin{equation} \lVert \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{i} \rVert _{2}^{2} = \sum_{a=1}^{D} \sigma_{a}^{2}(i) = D, \quad i = 1,2,\ldots,N, \end{equation}

so that their magnitudes equal $\sqrt{D}$. One can picture the classical spin degrees of freedom as arrows rotating along the surface of $(D-1)$-dimensional spheres at every site.

Cartoon of vector-spin system

In statistical mechanics, the model Eq. \eqref{eq:vectrandomising} is known as a whose familiar small-$D$ cases include the ($D=1$), the ($D=2$), and the ($D=3$). For infinite-dimensional spins $D \to \infty$, one can show that the system approaches the . The model defined by \eqref{eq:vectrandomising} can also be regarded as a vector generalization of or or disordered (but with just a single sample of non-local couplings instead of an underlying probability distribution). Similar models also appear in recent studies on higher-dimensional generalizations of spin glass models².

The partition function for our spin system looks like:

\begin{align} Z_{N}^{(D)} &\left( \beta, J_{ij}, \{ \boldsymbol{h}_{i} \} \right) \nonumber \\ &= \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \cdots \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \, \mathrm{d}\sigma_{1}(1) \cdots \mathrm{d}\sigma_{D}(N) \nonumber \\ & \qquad \times \prod_{j=1}^{N} \delta \left( D - \lVert \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{j} \rVert _{2}^{2} \right) \nonumber \\ & \qquad \times \exp \left[ \beta \sum_{i,j=1}^{N} J_{ij} \; \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{i} \cdot \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{j} + \beta \sum_{i=1}^{N} \boldsymbol{h}_{i} \cdot \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{i} \right] \label{eq:fullpartfun} \end{align}

where we have made all dependencies explicit. This looks absolutely mental. We somehow need to find a way to do $N \times D$ integrals while taking into account all the constraints and interactions.

Peeking into a physicist’s bag of tricks

Let’s first of all get rid of the explicit Dirac delta functions by substituting their complex integral representations

\begin{align} \delta \left( D - \lVert \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{j} \rVert _{2}^{2} \right) = \frac{\beta}{2 \pi i} \int_{-i\infty}^{i\infty} \mathrm{d} t_{j} \exp \left[ \beta t_{j} \left( D - \lVert \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{j} \rVert _{2}^{2} \right) \right] \end{align}

so that

\begin{align} Z_{N}^{(D)} &= \left(\frac{\beta}{2 \pi i}\right)^{N} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \cdots \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \, \mathrm{d}\sigma_{1}(1) \cdots \mathrm{d}\sigma_{D}(N) \nonumber \\ & \times \int_{-i\infty}^{i\infty} \cdots \int_{-i\infty}^{i\infty} \, \mathrm{d}t_{1} \cdots \mathrm{d}t_{N} \, \exp \left( \beta D \sum_{j=1}^{N} t_{j} \right)\nonumber \\ & \times \prod_{\alpha=1}^{D} \exp \left[ -\beta \sum_{i,j=1}^{N} \left(t_{j}\delta_{ij}-J_{ij}\right) \; \sigma_{\alpha}(i) \sigma_{\alpha}(j) + \beta \sum_{i=1}^{N} h_{\alpha}(i) \sigma_{\alpha}(i) \right] \nonumber \end{align}

Great, even more integrals. The next frustrating trick involves writing the number 1 as a judiciously chosen exponential,

\begin{align} \exp \left( \beta \sum_{j=1}^{N} a \left( D - \lVert \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{j} \rVert _{2}^{2} \right) \right) = 1, \end{align}

for some arbitrary constant $a$, which, inside the integral, indeed evaluates to $\exp (0) = 1$ because of the constraints. Inserting this expression gives

\begin{align} &Z_{N}^{(D)} = \left(\frac{\beta}{2 \pi i}\right)^{N} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \cdots \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \, \mathrm{d}\sigma_{1}(1) \cdots \mathrm{d}\sigma_{D}(N) \nonumber \\ & \times \int_{-i\infty}^{i\infty} \cdots \int_{-i\infty}^{i\infty} \, \mathrm{d}t_{1} \cdots \mathrm{d}t_{N} \, \exp \left( \beta D \sum_{j=1}^{N} \left( t_{j} + a\right) \right)\nonumber \\ & \times \prod_{\alpha=1}^{D} \exp \left[ -\beta \sum_{i,j=1}^{N} \left( \left( t_{j} + a \right) \delta_{ij}-J_{ij}\right) \; \sigma_{\alpha}(i) \sigma_{\alpha}(j) + \beta \sum_{i=1}^{N} h_{\alpha}(i) \sigma_{\alpha}(i) \right] \nonumber \end{align}

Next, we’d like to swap the order of the $\mathrm{d}\sigma_{a}(j)$ and $\mathrm{d}t_{j}$ integrations to start integrating. But we are only allowed to do this if we assume $a$ to be a sufficiently large positive real number. Why? Essentially, we are deforming the contours of the complex integrals sufficiently far to the right such that the real part the quadratic form appearing in the exponential is positive definite, see e.g. .

Let’s go ahead and assume that everything is fine. We swap integrals and do a change of variables $t_j \to t_j + a$ so that

\begin{align} Z_{N}^{(D)} &= \left(\frac{\beta}{2 \pi i}\right)^{N} \int_{a-i\infty}^{a+i\infty} \cdots \int_{a-i\infty}^{a+i\infty} \, \mathrm{d}t_{1} \cdots \mathrm{d}t_{N} \\ & \times \exp \left( \beta D \sum_{j=1}^{N} t_{j} \right)\nonumber \prod_{\alpha=1}^{D} I_{\alpha} \left( \beta, \{ t_{j} \}, \{ h_{\alpha}(i) \} \right)\nonumber \end{align}

where

\begin{align} I_{\alpha} &\left( \beta, \{ t_{j} \}, \{ h_{\alpha}(i) \} \right) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \cdots \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \, \mathrm{d}\sigma_{\alpha}(1) \cdots \mathrm{d}\sigma_{\alpha}(N) \nonumber \\ & \times \exp \left[ -\beta \sum_{i,j=1}^{N} \left( t_{j} \delta_{ij}-J_{ij}\right) \; \sigma_{\alpha}(i) \sigma_{\alpha}(j) + \beta \sum_{i=1}^{N} h_{\alpha}(i) \sigma_{\alpha}(i) \right]\nonumber \end{align}

Notice how the integrals have kind of factorized over the vector dimension: for every $\alpha$-component we can evaluate an $N$-dimensional Gaussian integral with a linear term. The $I_{\alpha}$ functions depend on the sources $\{ \boldsymbol{h}_{i} \}$ indexed along local dimension instead of spin. Introducing the symmetric $N \times N$ matrix $V_{ij} = t_{j} \delta_{ij}-J_{ij}$, we can evaluate the Gaussian integrals and find

\begin{align} I_{\alpha} &\left( \beta, \{ t_{j} \}, \{ h_{\alpha}(i) \} \right) = \left( \frac{\pi}{\beta} \right)^{N/2} \left[ \det \left( \boldsymbol{V} \right) \right]^{-1/2} \exp \left(\frac{\beta}{4} \boldsymbol{h}_{\alpha}^{T} \boldsymbol{V}^{-1} \boldsymbol{h}_{\alpha} \right) \nonumber \end{align}

where $\boldsymbol{h}_{\alpha} = \left[ h_{\alpha}(1), h_{\alpha}(2), \ldots, h_{\alpha}(N) \right]$ denote $N$-dimensional vectors. The expression for the partition function becomes

\begin{align} &Z_{N}^{(D)} = \left(\frac{\beta}{2 \pi i}\right)^{N} \left( \frac{\pi}{\beta} \right)^{DN/2} \int_{a-i\infty}^{a+i\infty} \cdots \int_{a-i\infty}^{a+i\infty} \, \mathrm{d}t_{1} \cdots \mathrm{d}t_{N} \nonumber \\ & \times \exp \left( D \left( \beta \sum_{j=1}^{N} t_{j} - \frac{1}{2} \log \det \left( \boldsymbol{V} \right) \right) \right) \exp \left( \frac{\beta}{4} \mathrm{Tr} \left( \boldsymbol{H}^{T} \boldsymbol{V}^{-1} \boldsymbol{H} \right) \right) \nonumber \end{align}

where we have introduced the matrix notation $\boldsymbol{H} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times D}$ to group the vectors $\{ \boldsymbol{h}_{i} \}$.

Steepest descent: hunting for the saddle

But there’s still $N$ complex integrals over the auxiliary variables $\{ t_{j} \}$ left to do. Can we avoid doing them? Maybe. Let’s rewrite our partition function as

\begin{align} Z_{N}^{(D)} = \left(\frac{\beta}{2 \pi i}\right)^{N} &\left( \frac{\pi}{\beta} \right)^{DN/2} \int_{a-i\infty}^{a+i\infty} \cdots \int_{a-i\infty}^{a+i\infty} \, \mathrm{d}t_{1} \cdots \mathrm{d}t_{N} \, \mathrm{e}^{D \varphi \left(\boldsymbol{t} \right) } \label{eq:partfunsteep} \end{align}

with

\begin{align} \varphi \left(\boldsymbol{t}; \beta, J_{ij} \right) = \beta \sum_{j=1}^{N} t_{j} - \frac{1}{2} \log \det \left( \boldsymbol{V} \right) + \frac{\beta}{4D} \mathrm{Tr} \left( \boldsymbol{H}^{T} \boldsymbol{V}^{-1} \boldsymbol{H} \right) \label{eq:varphi} \end{align}

As $D \to \infty$, the suggests that the partition function will be dominated by its largest contribution, i.e. in the neigbourhood of the maximum $\varphi(\boldsymbol{t^{*}})$ along the integration paths.

✨ Hmm, this doesn’t quite seem right #1: What does $D \to \infty$ even look like for the last term in Eq. \eqref{eq:varphi}? What does it mean for the input vectors $\{ \boldsymbol{h}_{i} \}$ to become infinite-dimensional? Good points, but let’s carry on.

The saddle-point values $\boldsymbol{t^{*}}$ are obtained from the set of stationary conditions

\begin{align} \frac{\partial \varphi \left( \boldsymbol{t} \right)}{\partial t_j} \Biggr\rvert_{t_j = t^{*}_{j}} = 0, \qquad j=1,\ldots,N \label{eq:statcond} \end{align}

✨ Hmm, this doesn’t quite seem right #2: In the single-variable case, argues that $\varphi (t)$ is analytic for $\mathrm{Re}(t)>0$ and that we should consider $\varphi (t)$ first for $t$ real and positive. For positive $\beta$ and non-zero magnetic field, the function tends to plus infinity as $t$ tends to either zero or infinity. Thus in between $\varphi(t)$ must have a minimum at some positive value $t^{*}$ of $t$. Since $\varphi''(t) > 0$ there is also only one such minimum. If we take the constant $a$ in the integral limits to be $t^{*}$, then along the (imaginary) integration path $\varphi (t)$ has a maximum at $t=t^{*}$. We naively assume that this kind of saddle-point reasoning transfers to our case in several complex variables with $\varphi : \mathbb{C}^{N} \to \mathbb{C}$ where the equivalent of $\mathrm{Re}(t)>0$ is to try to steer clear of the singularity at $\det \left( \boldsymbol{V} \right)=0$. We will check the numerical behaviour of our $\varphi$-function in .

Expanding $\varphi$ around $\boldsymbol{t^{*}}$ and then taking the logarithm of Eq. \eqref{eq:partfunsteep} leads to

\begin{align} \ln Z_{N}^{(D)} = \frac{DN}{2} \ln \left( \frac{\pi}{\beta} \right) + D \varphi \left( \boldsymbol{t^{*}} \right) + \ln R \nonumber \end{align}

where we have collected all higher-order contributions and remaining nastiness in $R$. Following , the free energy in the limit of large local dimension $D \to \infty$ then becomes

\begin{align} -\beta f_{N}^{(\infty)} = \lim_{D \to \infty} D^{-1} \ln \left( Z_{N}^{(D)} / Z_{N}^{(D)}(0) \right) \nonumber \end{align}

where

\begin{align} Z_{N}^{(D)}(0) = \left( \left(\pi\right)^{D/2} D^{(D-1)/2} / \Gamma \left(D/2\right) \right)^{N} \nonumber \end{align}

is a normalization factor³ accounting for the surface areas of the $(D-1)$-dimensional spheres with radius $\sqrt{D}$ associated to each and every spin degree of freedom. After applying to the $\Gamma$-function in the normalization factor and doing some algebra, we end up with

\begin{align} \boxed{-\beta f_{N}^{(\infty)} = - \frac{N}{2} - \frac{N}{2} \ln \left( 2\beta \right) + \varphi \left( \boldsymbol{t^{*}} \right)} \label{eq:afe} \end{align}

where we have dropped the last term $\lim_{D \to \infty} D^{-1} \ln R$ assuming it tends to zero. Since $\varphi \left( \boldsymbol{t^{*}} \right) \propto N$, the last term actually also survives the limit $N \to \infty$.

Taking stock of what we have done

We have derived a closed-form expression Eq. \eqref{eq:afe} for the approximate free energy of a vector-spin model in the limit of large local spin dimension. Let us take a brief moment to reflect on what we have done and touch on some tangential points.

Questioning steepest descent and the large-$D$ limit

The result \eqref{eq:afe} is only sensible if steepest descent is a valid thing to do, which depends on how outrageous the landscape defined by the $\varphi$-function \eqref{eq:varphi} really is. More practically, we will also never really let the vector-spin dimension $D$ tend towards infinity since our goal is to implement a numerical attention-like neural network module. So large but finite vector dimensions better behave as if they were sufficiently close to infinity. We will find out in to what extent these assumptions are valid in practice.

Energy-based models and effective energy functions

Let us take another look at our model’s partition function \eqref{eq:fullpartfun} from an energy-based perspective. For ease of notation, let us call the model parameters $\theta \equiv \{ J_{ij} \}$, the spins $\sigma \equiv \{ \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{i} \}$, and the external magnetic fields $h \equiv \{ \boldsymbol{h}_{i} \}$. We can schematically write our model’s partition function as

\begin{align} Z_{\theta} \left( h \right) = \int \mathrm{d} \sigma \ \mathrm{e}^{ - E_{\theta}\left( \sigma, h \right) } \end{align}

where $E_{\theta}\left( \sigma, h \right)$ denotes the energy function Eq. \eqref{eq:vectrandomising}. If we now introduce an energy-based model $p_{\theta} \left( \sigma, h \right) = \mathrm{e}^{-E_{\theta}\left( \sigma, h \right)} / Z_{\theta}$, we can define the marginal distribution

\begin{align} p_{\theta} \left( h \right) = \frac{\int \mathrm{d} \sigma \ \mathrm{e}^{-E_{\theta}\left( \sigma, h \right)}}{Z_{\theta}} = \frac{\mathrm{e}^{-E_{\theta}\left( h \right)}}{Z_{\theta}} \label{eq:ph} \end{align}

where the applied magnetic fields act as observables and the spins as latent variables. The effective energy $E_{\theta}\left( h \right)$ equals $E_{\theta}\left( h \right) = - \log \int \mathrm{d} \sigma \ \mathrm{e}^{-E_{\theta}\left( \sigma, h \right)} \approx - \log Z^{\ast}_{\theta} \left( h \right)$, where we have used the steepest-descent approximation for the integral. Taking the logarithm of Eq. \eqref{eq:ph}, we find that $\log p_{\theta} \left( h \right) \approx \log Z^{\ast}_{\theta} \left( h \right) - \log \int \mathrm{d} h \ Z^{\ast}_{\theta} \left( h \right)$.

Spin glasses and mean-field approximation

Ordered systems have a long history in statistical mechanics. Couplings in these models often encode a translation-invariant lattice geometry, e.g. nearest-neighbour interactions between spins living on a $d$-dimensional hypercubic lattice. One reason for this focus is practical: the regularity in these systems enables mathematical physicists to deploy all kinds of tricks and make progress towards some kind of understanding. In contrast, disordered systems, like spin glasses, are a mess and studying them is all about . From the perspective of spin glasses, we can summarize our approach as follows: we want to arrive at an approximate yet tractable mean-field spin-glass model where its couplings are treated as parameters learned from data⁴.

Fully-connected models like Sherrington-Kirkpatrick spin-glass models (or Eq. \eqref{eq:vectrandomising}) naturally lead to mean-field theory because the couplings $J_{ij}$ encode long-range interactions where every other spin is just a hop away, see e.g. . Intuitively, all-to-all interactions correspond to the mean-field limit of infinite spatial dimension. To see this, consider a spin in a local nearest-neighbour lattice model getting ever more neighbours as the spatial dimension grows: the notion of nearest neighbours melts away and all spins effectively become connected to each other⁵. Fully-connected non-local couplings and the limit of infinite spatial dimension are two sides of the same mean-field coin.

Implementing approximate free-energy minimization

In this section, we turn the equations of the previous section into the algorithmic backbone of a differentiable vector-spin model. We begin by sketching an approximate free-energy minimization algorithm. We then show how to wrap around the spin model to turn it into an attention module.

The algorithm: bold moves on a tricky landscape

Our goal is to compute the steepest-descent approximation of our model’s partition function in a differentiable way. Essentially, we need to solve the set of equations

\begin{align} \frac{\partial \varphi \left( \boldsymbol{t} \right)}{\partial t_j} \Biggr\rvert_{t_j = t^{*}_{j}} = 0, \qquad j=1,\ldots,N \end{align}

which corresponds to finding a value $\boldsymbol{t^{*}} = \mathrm{argmin}_{\boldsymbol{t}} \varphi \left( \boldsymbol{t} \right)$ for which the scalar function

attains its minimum, or, equivalently, we need to solve for the root of $\nabla \varphi \left( \boldsymbol{t} \right)$.

Initialization and normalization

Until now we have not been explicit about the values of the couplings $\boldsymbol{J}$ and inputs $\boldsymbol{H}$. If we want to implement any of this, we have to be more careful. Recall that the energy function of our model looks like

\begin{equation} E = - \sum_{i,j=1}^{N} J_{ij} \; \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{i} \cdot \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{j} - \sum_{i=1}^{N} \boldsymbol{h}_{i} \cdot \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{i} \end{equation}

where all spins $\boldsymbol{\sigma}_{i}$ are fixed to norm $\sqrt{D}$. We’d like this energy to remain linearly proportional to the the number of lattice sites. Numerically, we observe that stable root-finding is possible when initializing the couplings according to

\begin{equation} J_{ij} \sim \mathcal{N} (0, 1/\sqrt{ND} ) \end{equation}

The factor $1/\sqrt{N}$ can be explained from spin-glass mean-field theory⁶ whereas the $1/\sqrt{D}$ factor follows from additionally normalizing with respect to the vector dimension to ensure $\sum_{i,j=1}^{N} J_{ij} \; \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{i} \cdot \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{j} \sim \mathcal{O}(N)$. One strategy to normalize the inputs $\boldsymbol{H}$ is to feed them into a layer normalization layer so that $\left\lVert \boldsymbol{h}_{i} \right\rVert \sim \mathcal{O}(\sqrt{D})$ and then explicitly dividing by $\sqrt{D}$ to make them $\mathcal{O}(1)$. A practical consequence of these initialization and normalization choices at the level of the energy function is that the $\varphi$-function changes to

\begin{align} \varphi \left(\boldsymbol{t}; \beta, J_{ij} \right) = \beta \sum_{j=1}^{N} t_{j} - \frac{1}{2} \log \det \left( \boldsymbol{V} \right) + \frac{\beta}{4} \mathrm{Tr} \left( \boldsymbol{H}^{T} \boldsymbol{V}^{-1} \boldsymbol{H} \right) \label{eq:varphinorm} \end{align}

where the prefactor in the last term changed since we decided on explicitly dividing the layer-normalized $\boldsymbol{H}$ by $1/\sqrt{D}$.

Implicit layers for steepest-descent root-finding

Let’s now find the root of the gradient of $\varphi$ in a differentiable way by combining with a black-box root-finding algorithm like , which requires access to both a function (the gradient of $\varphi$) and its gradient (the Jacobian of the gradient of $\varphi$). We could rely on automatic differentiation to calculate these gradients, but we just as well exploit the fact that we have an analytical expression Eq. \eqref{eq:varphinorm}. Grabbing a coffee and peeking at the , we can figure out what happens

when we wiggle around $t_{i}$ (the gradient vector at $\boldsymbol{t}$)

\begin{align} \left[ \nabla \varphi \left( \boldsymbol{t} \right) \right]_{i} = \beta - \frac{1}{2} \left[ \boldsymbol{V}^{-1} \right]_{ii} - \frac{\beta}{4} \left[ \boldsymbol{V}^{-T} \boldsymbol{H} \boldsymbol{H}^{T} \boldsymbol{V}^{-T} \right]_{ii} \nonumber \end{align}

when we wiggle around both $t_{i}$ and $t_{j}$ (the symmetric Hessian matrix at $\boldsymbol{t}$)

\begin{align} \left[ \boldsymbol{J}(\nabla \varphi \left( \boldsymbol{t} \right)) \right]_{ij} = \frac{1}{2} &\left[ \boldsymbol{V}^{-1} \odot \boldsymbol{V}^{-T} \right]_{ij} \nonumber \\ &+ \frac{\beta}{4} \left[ \boldsymbol{V}^{-T} \boldsymbol{H} \boldsymbol{H}^{T} \boldsymbol{V}^{-T} \boldsymbol{V}^{-T} \odot \boldsymbol{I} \right]_{ij} \nonumber \\ &+ \frac{\beta}{4} \left[ \boldsymbol{V}^{-T} \boldsymbol{V}^{-T} \boldsymbol{H} \boldsymbol{H}^{T} \boldsymbol{V}^{-T} \odot \boldsymbol{I} \right]_{ij} \nonumber \end{align}

Given an initial guess $\boldsymbol{t_{0}} \in \mathbb{R}^{N}_{>0}$ and input data $\boldsymbol{H} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times D}$, we can now construct a differentiable root-solver which returns $\boldsymbol{t^{*}}$. It is important to keep in mind that the stationary value $\boldsymbol{t^{*}}$ actually depends on $\left(\beta, \boldsymbol{J}, \boldsymbol{H} \right)$ implicitly. Since we make use of implicit layers within an automatic differentation framework, these dependencies are kept track of and are included in the computational graph.

Fun with free energies

Let’s test the algorithm by initializing a random vector-spin model and applying a random magnetic field at every site. For visualization purposes, we restrict the auxiliary variables to be effectively one-dimensional by defining $\boldsymbol{t} = t \boldsymbol{1}_{N}$ with just a single scalar parameter $t \in \mathbb{R}_{>0}$. We can probe a VectorSpinModel and get the approximate free energy for a given set of parameters and inputs by running the following script:

 from afem.models import VectorSpinModel

 num_spins, dim = 32, 128
 model = VectorSpinModel(num_spins=num_spins, dim=dim, beta=1.0)

 x = (torch.randn(1, num_spins, dim) / np.sqrt(dim)).requires_grad_()
 t0 = torch.ones(1)

 afe = model(x, t0, return_afe=True).afe

Inside the forward pass, the root $\boldsymbol{t^{*}}$ is computed and then fed into Eq. \eqref{eq:afe} to calculate the approximate free energy. We can verify that our algorithm is doing something sensible by sweeping across the auxiliary $t$-values and plotting $\varphi$ and its derivatives:

Sweep across auxiliary variable

The region close to $t=0$ looks terrifying. In this regime, $t$ is likely not large enough to overshadow the largest eigenvalue of the couplings so we lose positive definiteness and its nice properties. Let’s try to stay away from that region by always initializing $\boldsymbol{t}_{0}$ sufficiently far from it. Depending on the parameters and initial guess provided to the solver, one can of course end up in less favourable landscapes where root-solving can become difficult due to zero gradients or extreme sensitivity to initial conditions. Fortunately, when the root-solving step fails, it tends to fail spectacularly.

Let’s now sweep across inverse temperature $\beta$ to get some intuition. From the analytical expression of the free energy, we can deduce that for small $\beta$ (high temperature) the entropy term reigns while for large $\beta$ (low temperature) the energy terms take over.

Sweep across inverse temperature

Finally, let’s lift the one-dimensional restriction on $\boldsymbol{t}$ and plot $\varphi (\boldsymbol{t})$ for two spins. In that case, $\boldsymbol{t}$ is also just two-dimensional so we can still visualize the optimization landscape.

Two-dimensional auxiliary variables

The attention module: probing spins with data

In the previous section, we showed how to numerically compute the steepest-descent approximation of a vector-spin model’s partition function and hence its free energy. Since this approximation is fully differentiable, we can also take derivatives with respect to conjugate variables. Let’s use this observation to construct an attention module.

Spin expectation values

We can calculate spin expectation values or magnetizations from our partition function approximation by differentiating with respect to the applied magnetic fields:

\begin{align} \langle \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{i} \rangle = \frac{\mathrm{d} \log Z \left( \boldsymbol{t}, \boldsymbol{H} \right)}{\mathrm{d} \boldsymbol{h}_{i}} = \frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial \boldsymbol{t}} \frac{\partial \boldsymbol{t}}{\partial \boldsymbol{h}_{i}} + \frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial \boldsymbol{h}_{i}} \label{eq:spinevgeneral} \end{align}

If we evaluate the partition function approximation at the stationary point $\boldsymbol{t^{\ast}}$, the first term drops out because $\partial_{\boldsymbol{t}} \varphi \rvert_{\boldsymbol{t}=\boldsymbol{t^{\ast}}} = 0$. Assuming that the matrix $\boldsymbol{V}$ (and hence the couplings $\boldsymbol{J}$) do not depend on the inputs $\boldsymbol{H}$, the spin expectation value boils down to

\begin{align} \langle \boldsymbol{\sigma}_{i} \rangle = \frac{\partial \varphi}{\partial \boldsymbol{h}_{i}} = \frac{\beta}{2} \sum_{j} \boldsymbol{V}^{-1}_{ij} \boldsymbol{h}_{j} \label{eq:spinev} \end{align}

which, for every site, is just a weighted sum of inputs. In the language of transformers, Eq. \eqref{eq:spinev} resembles an update step where $\boldsymbol{V}^{-1}$ can be interpreted as a symmetric attention matrix. Expanding the matrix inverse reveals a residual connection as the zero-th order contribution⁷.

Since the couplings are scalars at the level of the energy function Eq. \eqref{eq:vectrandomising}, getting terms to act on the hidden dimension seems to be impossible. But by considering couplings $\boldsymbol{J}(\boldsymbol{H})$ which do depend on inputs, additional terms can appear in Eq. \eqref{eq:spinev} propagating via dependencies in $\boldsymbol{V}$. Instead of calculating these gradients analytically, we should of course just let our automatic differentiation framework compute them for us.

Wrapping around the spin model

At this point, we have done all the heavy lifting. All that remains is to write a wrapper so that we can use our module just like any other explicit attention module:

 from afem.attention import VectorSpinAttention

 num_spins, dim = 32, 128
 attention = VectorSpinAttention(num_spins=num_spins, dim=dim, beta=1.0)

 x = torch.randn(1, num_spins, dim).requires_grad_()

 attention(x) # (1, 32, 128)

Inside the forward pass of VectorSpinAttention, (normalized) inputs are sent to an internal VectorSpinModel which solves for the saddle point $\boldsymbol{t^{*}}$ and then feeds it into the steepest descent partition function to calculate magnetizations according to Eq. \eqref{eq:spinevgeneral}.

Let’s finish this section by discussing some of the peculiarities of our approach:

Stability and symmetry: The root-finding is stable as long as $\det \boldsymbol{V} > 0$, which ensures that $\boldsymbol{V}$ is nonsingular and which is garantueed as long as the quadratic form is positive definite. A quadratic form involving a general $\boldsymbol{V}$ (i.e. with nonsymmetric couplings $\boldsymbol{J}$) is positive definite iff its symmetric part has all positive eigenvalues. When this is no longer the case, things tend to blow up.
Scaling: Our approach is kind of slow because calculating inverses scales as $\mathcal{O}\left(N^3\right)$. Yet there might be ways to approximate the slow parts of the algorithm similar to how vanilla transformers can be understood to approximate mean-field fixed-point equations⁸.
Lack of permutation invariance: Our model is not permutation invariant with the default choice of input-independent couplings: every spin has a role to play.
Input-dependent couplings: Because our default model assumes coupling-independent couplings $\boldsymbol{J}$, Eq. \eqref{eq:spinev} features just a “token-mixing” attention operation. Channel-mixing terms can appear when we consider the physically very weird setup where the couplings are made dependent on the applied magnetic fields. One possible choice could be: \begin{align} \boldsymbol{J}(\boldsymbol{H}) = \frac{\tanh \left( \boldsymbol{H} \boldsymbol{Q} \boldsymbol{K}^T \boldsymbol{H}^T \cdot \sqrt{D} \right)}{\sqrt{ND}} \nonumber \end{align} where $\boldsymbol{Q}$ and $\boldsymbol{K}$ are linear transformations acting on the hidden dimension and where the scaling factors have been inserted because of the normalization conventions we discussed in . We hypothesize that additional terms in the spin expectation value Eq. \eqref{eq:spinev} arising from input-dependent couplings might be related to channel-mixing feed-forward networks in transformer modules.

Comparison with vanilla transformers

In this final section, let’s summarize our approach on a high level by visually comparing it to vanilla transformers and deep equilibrium approaches.

The vanilla transformer (left above) is an explicit architecture which processes input sequences sequentially through a stack of transformer modules. Deep equilibrium transformers (right above) compute the output of a transformer module by implicitly solving for the fixed point of $f(z, x) = z$ where $f$ denotes the explicit transformer module. Data is repeatedly inserted by adding it to the current iteration of $z$ inside the module until fixed-point convergence. The converged fixed point is considered the output of the module. Backpropagation through the iterations of the solver is avoided by using the implicit function theorem to calculate gradients directly at the equilibrium point. Instead of a stack of layers, there’s just a single layer.

But deep equilibrium transformers still treat the transformer module as a black box. In we looked for a physical spin-model interpretation of the deep equilibrium fixed-point procedure (left below). We argued how the update step of a vanilla transformer module resembled mean-field fixed-point equations of a vector-spin model, explaining the successful pattern of token-mixing, residual connections, normalization layers, and feed-forward or channel-mixing modules from a physical spin systems’ perspective.

In this work (right above), we continued on the path of spin expectation values but replaced solving mean-field fixed-point equations with directly taking derivatives of the steepest-descent partition function of a particular class of vector-spin models. The fixed-point procedure is replaced with a root-solving step to determine the steepest-descent partition function. The structure of our module’s output reveals the same successful transformer-like pattern of token-mixing (attention) and channel-mixing (feed-forward) interspersed with normalization layers and residual connections.

Conclusion

In this post, we introduced transformer modules as wrappers around statistical-mechanical vector-spin models. We used implicit layers to construct a class of approximate yet tractable vector-spin models whose couplings act as parameters that can be learned from data. We showed how these models can act as transformer-like attention modules by routing inputs to applied magnetic fields and returning spin expectation values derived from their steepest-descent partition function.

By zooming out and approaching transformers from a tangential, statistical-mechanical point of view, we were able to develop a physical intuition of transformers that seems hard to arrive at when restricting oneself to perturbing explicit neural network architectures. Recognizing transformer modules as spin models in disguise might not only unify architectural variations but also elucidate the high-level architectural convergence and empirical success of transformers in deep learning.

References & footnotes

If you happen to find this work useful, please consider citing it as:

@article{bal2021afem,
 title = {Transformers from Spin Models: Approximate Free Energy Minimization},
 author = {Bal, Matthias},
 year = {2021},
 month = {October},
 url = {https://mcbal.github.io/post/transformers-from-spin-models-approximate-free-energy-minimization/}
}

We could have turned to the mean-field free energies associated with the adaptive TAP equations discussed in , but we decided on attacking the problem from the steepest-descent angle on the full partition function. ↩︎
For example, see and . ↩︎
The original 1968 paper has a small typo here: the $\nu$ in the paper’s Eq. (23) should be $\nu^{1/2}$ for the surface area of a $\nu-1$-dimensional sphere with radius $R=\nu^{1/2}$ embedded in $\nu$ dimensions. Using the paper’s formula, an annoying $\ln \nu$ term won’t cancel out in the limiting free energy calculation. ↩︎
In contrast to spin glasses however, we do not (yet want to go full Bayesian and) treat the couplings as drawn from some kind of probability distribution. For now, we settle for obtaining point estimates of model parameters. ↩︎
By promoting sparseness in the couplings, a model might become less mean-field-y, which might be one of the reasons behind the sucess of scaled softmax attention in vanilla transformers. ↩︎
From : The mean-field limit to infinite dimensions or long-range interaction introduces a new large scale. To make the thermodynamic limit meaningful the dependence of the energy on this new large scale must be compensated by rescaling the non-local spin exchange so that the energy remains linearly proportional to the volume or the number of lattice sites (spins). ↩︎
We can expand the right-hand side using a to find
\begin{align} \boldsymbol{V}^{-1} &= \left( \mathrm{diag} ( \boldsymbol{t} ) - \boldsymbol{J} \right)^{-1} = \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \left( \mathrm{diag} \left( \boldsymbol{t}^{-1} \right) \boldsymbol{J} \right)^{k} \mathrm{diag} \left( \boldsymbol{t}^{-1} \right) \nonumber \end{align}
which converges if the largest absolute value of the eigenvalues of the matrix inside the power-brackets is less than 1. So the spin expectation value looks like a sum of contributions that mix and weigh inputs of different sites. ↩︎
As discussed previously in . In that setting, calculating inverses was sidestepped by approximating part of the solution with a feed-forward neural network. ↩︎