The Structural Attention Tax: How Retrieval Format Hijacks In-Context Learning Independent of Content
Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Computation and Language
Title:The Structural Attention Tax: How Retrieval Format Hijacks In-Context Learning Independent of Content
Abstract:Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems inject external knowledge to improve LLM outputs, yet the format of injected content -- distinct from its semantic relevance -- can independently distort the model's attention distribution. We identify and formalise a phenomenon we term the structural attention tax: knowledge graph (KG) triples, due to their relational delimiters and repeated slot patterns, capture 2-3x more attention per token than semantically equivalent natural-language text ($\hat{o}$(KG) $\approx$ 0.70 vs. $\hat{o}$(neutral) $\approx$ 0.25), compressing demonstration attention by up to 42% -- regardless of whether the triples are relevant or noise. We develop a formal framework decomposing attention scores into semantic and structural components (Eq. 2), derive a compression bound (Proposition 1) connecting token-level format bias to demonstration attention loss, and show that the structural term governs how much attention is diverted while the semantic term governs whether this helps or hurts. This decoupling reveals two orthogonal axes for improving retrieval-augmented ICL: optimising retrieval quality (semantic axis) and reducing format-driven attention capture (structural axis). Empirically, across two model families (Mistral-7B, LLaMA-3-8B) and three QA benchmarks, we observe that source-task alignment dominates: task-matched BM25 retrieval achieves 58-62% on HotpotQA vs. ConceptNet's 25-27%, a >30 pp gap that dwarfs all gating strategies ($\leq$2 pp). We derive five structure-aware mitigation strategies from the framework, ranging from zero-cost prompt modifications to training-time regularisation; format flattening (S3) is validated by both accuracy and attention-level evidence from a verbalized-triple control, while structural dispersal (S1) yields mixed results that illuminate the challenges of format-level intervention.
| Comments: | 10 pages, 5 figures |
| Subjects: | Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) |
| ACM classes: | I.2.7 |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2606.11198 [cs.CL] |
| (or arXiv:2606.11198v1 [cs.CL] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.11198
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
|
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
References & Citations
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
More from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language
-
EDEN: A Large-Scale Corpus of Clinical Notes for Italian
Jun 12
-
Helping Figures Tell their Story! Paper-Grounded Video Generation Explaining Complex Scientific Figures
Jun 12
-
MARD: Mirror-Augmented Reasoning Distillation for Mechanism-Level Drug-Drug Interaction Prediction
Jun 12
-
Constrained Semantic Decompression in LLMs through Persian Proverb-Conditioned Story Generation
Jun 12
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.