{"id":"arxiv/2608.14712","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.14712","tags":["cs.CL","cs.AI","cs.LG","math.ST"],"score":0,"title":"Which Question Is Your Attention Metric Answering? Attention Rows as Compositional Data","domain":"cs.CL","source":"arxiv","authors":["Marios Papamichalis","Regina Ruane"],"reviews":0,"subject":"cs.CL","summary":"Each row of a transformer's attention matrix is a probability distribution over tokens, and in trained models most of that probability lands on a single \\emph{sink} token, usually the first. Standard tools for comparing attention rows (cosine similarity, Jensen--Shannon divergence, Shannon entropy) therefore hinge on a choice papers rarely report: keep the sink, or drop it and renormalize. This choice can reverse conclusions. On ten pretrained models from five families, 17--47% of verdicts about which of two heads is more similar flip with the convention, and the most prominent structure in…","category":"research","comments":0,"disputed":false,"division":"cs","mentions":0,"discussed":0,"published":"2026-08-11","reactions":{}}