Disentangling Geometry, Performance, and Training in Language Models

Pre-training large language models is dominated by the memory cost of storing full-rank weights, gradients, and optimizer states. Low-rank pre-training has emerged to address this, and the space of methods has grown rapidly. A central question remains open: do low-rank methods produce models that generalize comparably to full-rank training, or does the rank constraint fundamentally alter the solutions reached? Existing comparisons rely almost entirely on validation perplexity from single-seed runs, often carried forward from prior literature. Yet perplexity is a poor proxy for solution quality; two methods can match on perplexity while converging to different loss landscape regions and internal representations. We close this gap by characterizing the solutions found by five low-rank pre-training methods, GaLore and Fira (memory-efficient optimizers), CoLA and SLTrain (architecture reparameterizations), and ReLoRA (adapter-style updates with periodic resets), against full-rank training at three model scales (60M, 130M, 350M). We evaluate each along 16 metrics across four dimensions: 1-D loss landscape along random/top-K PCA directions, 1-D interpolation between checkpoints, spectral structure of the weights and learned updates, and activation similarity to full-rank training. We show that low-rank methods are not equivalent to full-rank training, nor to one another, even when validation perplexity is close. Full-rank training settles into a sharper basin than low-rank methods along random directions, while the reverse holds for the top-1 PCA direction. Each method converges to a geometrically distinct basin. Low-rank activations diverge from full-rank in later layers as training progresses, with GaLore tracking full-rank most closely. Further, validation perplexity does not translate to downstream performance at every scale. Adding geometric and spectral metrics improves the prediction.

Model dimension ($d_{model}$) is a fundamental hyperparameter in transformer language models, yet its role in setting the geometric limits of feature representation remains under-explored. Grounded in the Linear Representation and Superposition Hypotheses - which propose that models encode features as near-orthogonal directions in latent space - we develop a framework for estimating how many such directions a model can support. We first establish the embedding matrix as a measurable proxy for near-orthogonality constraints across the latent space: the boundary between meaningful token relationships and incidental similarity in the pairwise cosine similarity distribution gives a concrete estimate of the model's accepted deviation $\varepsilon$ from perfect orthogonality. Applying this metric across dozens of open-source models reveals two classes: models with high $\varepsilon$ whose embeddings lack near-orthogonal structure, and models with low $\varepsilon$ that maintain it. We then show that the standard Johnson-Lindenstrauss lemma greatly underestimates the packing efficiency of trained representations, and derive an adjusted capacity formula in which the number of near-orthogonal directions depends on the ratio of vectors to dimensions ($k/d$) rather than the raw count - a single modification that cuts prediction error by two orders of magnitude with no extra parameters. Combining these results, we define representational capacity as an upper bound on the number of distinguishable directions available for features and embeddings in a model's latent space. Capacity is exponentially sensitive to $\varepsilon$, and larger models favor tighter orthogonality constraints over maximizing raw capacity - a pattern compatible with several explanations (a stability-capacity trade-off, a ceiling on usable concepts, or confounds with model scale) that we leave to future work.

In language models, what a representation encodes is determined by the geometry of its representation space: distances, not activations, carry meaning. Existing tools characterize the shape of this geometry but do not ask what that shape is organized for. We introduce Subspace PGA, a metric that tests whether a layer's distance structure aligns with the readout subspace of the unembedding matrix $W_U$ more than with random subspaces of equal size. Across seven Pythia models (70M--6.9B) and three cross-family models, intermediate geometry is significantly organized for prediction (peak $z = 9$--$24$), but the degree is scale-dependent: small models ($d \leq 1024$) progressively lose it at late layers during training -- even as loss keeps improving -- while large models ($d \geq 2048$) preserve it throughout. We trace this to a capacity trade-off: a few dominant directions migrate away from $W_U$'s readout, masking rather than destroying the predictive structure beneath, and removing them restores alignment. Neither spectral metrics nor loss curves capture this distinction. Scale thus determines not only how well a model predicts, but how its representation geometry is organized to do so.