K. Costa
Publications
When Should Graph Attention Be Sparse? Learning a Per-Edge Tsallis Index
Graph attention normalizes neighborhood scores with softmax, the maximum-entropy choice under Shannon statistics. But homophilic and heterophilic graphs want different attention shapes, and one fixed normalization cannot serve both. We propose \textbf{LTGA} (\textbf{L}earnable \textbf{T}sallis \textbf{G}raph \textbf{A}ttention), a graph attention layer whose Tsallis entropic index $q$ is learned jointly with the weights, interpolating continuously between heavy-tailed ($q\!<\!1$), softmax ($q\!=\!1$) and compact-support ($q\!>\!1$) attention at four granularities from a global scalar to a per-edge index, under a bounded reparameterization that starts every model at the GAT baseline. Across eight benchmarks at ten seeds, LTGA-Edge takes the best average rank ($2.75$), but the omnibus test does not reject ($p\!=\!0.199$) and learning $q$ does not beat searching it: a validation-tuned frozen grid reaches $61.4\%$, tuned $α$-entmax $62.2\%$ and a capacity-matched $q\!\equiv\!1$ control $62.0\%$, against $61.7\%$ for LTGA-Edge. What the learned index buys is one run instead of a grid, and an interpretable mechanism: where $q$ leaves $1$, it prunes $42\%$ of attention coefficients to exactly zero, and those edges are selectively the wrong ones, restoring them costs $7.1$ points, while random pruning at the same rate costs $13.0$ more. Project page: https://kleyt0n.github.io/ltga
The Confidence Manifold: Geometric Structure of Correctness Representations in Language Models
When a language model asserts that "the capital of Australia is Sydney," does it know this is wrong? We characterize the geometry of correctness representations across 9 models from 5 architecture families. The structure is simple: the discriminative signal occupies 3-8 dimensions, performance degrades with additional dimensions, and no nonlinear classifier improves over linear separation. Centroid distance in the low-dimensional subspace matches trained probe performance (0.90 AUC), enabling few-shot detection: on GPT-2, 25 labeled examples achieve 89% of full-data accuracy. We validate causally through activation steering: the learned direction produces 10.9 percentage point changes in error rates while random directions show no effect. Internal probes achieve 0.80-0.97 AUC; output-based methods (P(True), semantic entropy) achieve only 0.44-0.64 AUC. The correctness signal exists internally but is not expressed in outputs. That centroid distance matches probe performance indicates class separation is a mean shift, making detection geometric rather than learned.