Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Sparse and local attention approximations (top-k attention, attention sinks plus a sliding window, KV-cache eviction) are cheap, but their cost depends on which heads they are applied to. A common heuristic decides this from the shape of the attention distribution: a head with low entropy is "focused" and therefore safe to sparsify. We test this heuristic directly. For every (prompt, head) pair we approximate one head at a time and measure the damage to the next-token distribution, for three open models with different attention layouts and sizes (Qwen2.5-1.5B with grouped-query attention, SmolLM2-1.7B with multi-head attention, and Mistral-7B-v0.3 with grouped-query attention), 137 prompts across 13 task types and up to eight approximation budgets, about 1.5 million single-head interventions in total. Attention entropy is a weak predictor of damage (AUROC 0.58-0.81), and when used to choose which heads to approximate it is at best no better than random: on the two smaller models it is worse than random (at half the heads approximated it changes the top-1 answer in 40-53% of prompts versus 31-39% for random choice), while the more approximation-robust 7B model avoids that reversal but is still beaten by the forward-only score below. Instead, damage factorises into three forward-pass quantities: the local output error ||aV - a'V||, an exact identity computable inside the attention kernel; a static per-head gain calibrated offline on unrelated tasks; and the entropy of the model's output. This forward-only score reaches AUROC 0.93-0.96 in every setting, including the 7B model, and recovers 86-107% of the gap between the best local signal and a backward-pass gradient oracle. We further show that 94-98% of the variance in gradient sensitivity is explained by prompt-level output confidence, consistently across all three models, and we document a failure mode: allocating approximations across prompts by fragility fails under aggressive approximation unless each prompt's share is capped.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Birend Pratap Singh (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: