Same Geometry, Opposite Noise: Transformer Magnitude Representations Lack Scalar Variability

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.

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.

Current transformer language models are trained with uniform computational budgets across all layers, implicitly assuming layer homogeneity. We challenge this assumption through empirical analysis of SmolLM2-135M, a 30-layer, 135M-parameter causal language model, using five diagnostic metrics: weight predictability (R2), ablation degradation, recovery speed, weight manipulation robustness, and structural analysis. We find profound anatomical heterogeneity: (1) Layer weights follow strong mathematical regularity (R2 = 0.91) with a universal oscillatory delta pattern (correlation ~= -0.50), yet predicted weights cause catastrophic failure due to nonlinear error accumulation. (2) Layer importance spans a 10^7 range, from a critical core (L8-11, up to +63,419% PPL degradation) to anti-layers (L14, L17) whose removal improves performance. (3) Recovery speed correlates with layer importance, indicating differential training requirements. (4) Only weight scaling (alpha = 0.9) preserves model quality among five tested manipulation strategies. (5) Growth Transformer Training, allocating budget by layer importance, achieves ~54% cost reduction. A proof-of-concept experiment confirms this: 4.7x lower validation loss than uniform training at identical parameter count, while being 13% faster.