Counterexamples to Local Reconstruction Gain as a Proxy for Final Fidelity in Residual Completion

arXiv:2609.34063 · cs.LG, cs.CL · Submitted 2026-09-28 · Read on arXiv

cs.LG, cs.CL

Submitted: 2026-09-28

Updated: 2026-09-28

License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

The gist: Residual completion augments query-aware sparse attention by estimating the contribution of tokens omitted from the exact sparse computation.

Terminology

Abstract

Residual completion augments query-aware sparse attention by estimating the contribution of tokens omitted from the exact sparse computation. We ask whether improving a layer's attention-output reconstruction on the same incoming Q/K/V and selected support necessarily improves the fidelity of the final model output. We study training-free RESA and learned Top-K+ ϕ with frozen backbone language models. A prespecified single-layer screen yields two Qwen3-0.6B/Multi-LexSum interventions for which direct-runtime measurements show positive prespecified request-aggregate local reconstruction gain but worse final KL fidelity than the corresponding all-abstain Exact Top-K baseline on both discovery and prompt-token-disjoint holdout requests. Exact restoration at the same layer instead improves final fidelity, showing that the reversal is specific to approximate completion in these cases. In complementary multi-layer experiments, a task-independent local diagnostic often repairs the tested completion estimators, although the repaired models do not consistently outperform Exact Top-K. Together, these results show that better local reconstruction need not translate into better final-model fidelity.

Sources

Related papers