How do transformer language models represent magnitude? Recent work disagrees: some find logarithmic spacing, others linear encoding, others per-digit circular representations. We apply the formal tools of psychophysics to resolve this. Using four converging paradigms (representational similarity analysis, behavioural discrimination, precision gradients, causal intervention) across three magnitude domains in three 7-9B instruction-tuned models spanning three architecture families (Llama, Mistral, Qwen), we report three findings. First, representational geometry is consistently log-compressive: RSA correlations with a Weber-law dissimilarity matrix ranged from .68 to .96 across all 96 model-domain-layer cells, with linear geometry never preferred. Second, this geometry is dissociated from behaviour: one model produces a human-range Weber fraction (WF = 0.20) while the other does not, and both models perform at chance on temporal and spatial discrimination despite possessing logarithmic geometry. Third, causal intervention reveals a layer dissociation: early layers are functionally implicated in magnitude processing (4.1x specificity) while later layers where geometry is strongest are not causally engaged (1.2x). Corpus analysis confirms the efficient coding precondition (alpha = 0.77). These results suggest that training data statistics alone are sufficient to produce log-compressive magnitude geometry, but geometry alone does not guarantee behavioural competence.
Figures & tables
Paradigm
Measures
Dependent variable
Falsification
A: Representational Geometry Probing
Hidden-state distances between magnitude encodings
Cosine/Euclidean distance in activation space
Linear geometry refutes Weber
B: Behavioural Discrimination
Forced-choice magnitude comparison accuracy
Proportion correct, Weber fraction
Accuracy predicted by absolute diff, not ratio
C: Precision Gradient
How representational density changes with magnitude
Local pairwise distance between adjacent magnitudes
Flat precision gradient refutes efficient coding
D: Causal Intervention
Whether magnitude subspace is functionally relevant
Δ p after activation patching
No causal effect means geometry is epiphenomenal
Table 1: Overview of the four experimental paradigms.
Numerical
Temporal
Spatial
Llama (cosine)
16/16
16/16
16/16
Llama (Euclidean)
16/16
16/16
16/16
Mistral (cosine)
16/16
16/16
16/16
Mistral (Euclidean)
16/16
16/16
16/16
Table 2: H1 (logarithmic geometry) results: layers passing / 16 primary layers. Pass criterion: Weber RSA ρ > Linear RSA ρ (Mantel p < .017) AND Weber AIC < Linear AIC.
Figure 1: Representational geometry is unanimously logarithmic across models, domains, and layers.
Domain / Task
Llama accuracy
Mistral accuracy
Llama ratio effect
Mistral ratio effect
Numerical B1 (primary)
78.5%
74.8%
✓ Weber-like
Weak (abs diff wins)
Numerical B2
57.9%
69.0%
× Chance
× Chance
Numerical B3
90.6%
86.3%
✓ Strong
✓ Yes
Symbolic control
99.9%
50.0%
× Ceiling
× Position bias
Temporal B1
47.9%
47.1%
× Chance
× Chance
Spatial B1
49.7%
50.0%
× Chance
× Chance
Table 3: Paradigm B results across domains and task types.
Figure 2: Behavioural Weber’s Law: Llama shows ratio-dependent discrimination in the human range; Mistral does not.
Figure 3: Compression is maximal ( β≈0 ) and precision declines with magnitude, consistent with efficient coding.