cs.LGMay 2, 2026

Concepts Whisper While Syntax Shouts: Spectral Anti-Concentration and the Dual Geometry of Transformer Representations

Authors: Pratyush AcharyaNuraj RimalHabish Dhakal

Abstract

We test whether the causal inner product of \citet{park2024linear} -- defined by the unembedding covariance ΣΣ -- enables cross-lingual concept transport. Across 17 models and 4 language pairs, a matched-spectrum randomization test finds that Whitened Causal Alignment is indistinguishable from spectral regularization alone (p=0.95p = 0.95). However, this failure reveals a broader phenomenon: anti-concentration is observed in residual-stream difference-of-means vectors across five architecture families (p<1033p < 10^{-33}) and supported by SAE features (e.g., p=4.5×1019p = 4.5 \times 10^{-19}) and linear probes on Gemma and Llama. We discover a \emph{dual geometry}: activation-space concept directions anti-concentrate in the spectral tail, while static unembedding-row contrasts \emph{concentrate} in high-variance directions (p<104p < 10^{-4}). Split-injection causal interventions support the functional basis on Gemma and Llama (Cohen's dd up to 1.801.80), and POS-tag probing across 8 models shows syntax preferentially encodes in the high-variance subspace in 6 of 8 architectures (p<0.013p < 0.013), with the Qwen~2.5 family showing a significant reversal consistent with architecture-specific spectral structure. These results suggest transformers may rotate semantic content into spectrally quiet regions during contextualized processing, encoding concepts where they can be manipulated with reduced grammatical disruption.

Explore similar work

Aug 10, 2026cs.CL

Off-Axis, On Purpose: Where a Transformer Computes Concepts and Why it Does So

A transformer's answer lives on one axis: the direction its unembedding reads. Its intermediate states largely do not, and that off-axis position is usually treated as an obstacle to interpretation. We show it is functional. A 12-layer model computes in two phases. Through the first, every sublayer writes into a subspace held near-orthogonal to the read-out, attention 75 to 96 degrees off it at every depth. Moving attention's values onto the read-out is 64 to 84 times more damaging than a matched random rotation, and the damage is entirely in cross-token mixing: the subspace insulates composition from the vocabulary. Beneath it the frame itself turns rigidly with depth. In the second phase the answer arrives on-axis, late, and by addition rather than by turning accumulated content onto the read-out. Pressing every layer onto the read-out instead, as training for early exit does, matches the baseline on perplexity, LAMBADA and BLiMP while cutting the concept-phase workspace from about twenty-five effective dimensions to fourteen, a change none of those benchmarks register. The geometry can also be imposed, though not by asking for it. Prescribing it through the loss is a lottery: six of eight seeds collapse, because a model told to null its read-out projection obeys most cheaply by discarding dimensions. Inserting one fixed rotation at the phase boundary lands it instead, at baseline quality. A sparse rotation the surrounding weights can absorb converges on all nine seeds, against five of nine for ordinary training. Which rotation is immaterial: twenty-five runs across thirteen distinct ones reach the same quality, and two baselines from different seeds hold their concepts in near-orthogonal frames while agreeing on their read-outs. That freedom is usable: a basis drawn at random and prescribed before training is adopted across the concept phase, with quality unchanged.
Mark Oskin
May 24, 2026cs.LG

The Concept Allocation Zone: Tracking How Concepts Form Across Transformer Depth

Concept formation in transformer language models is depth-extended, not a single-layer event: concepts emerge gradually across a contiguous region of the residual stream. Mechanistic interpretability methods identify the single layer of peak class separation -- the "best layer" -- capturing a snapshot rather than the process itself. We introduce the Concept Allocation Zone (CAZ): the depth interval within which a concept becomes measurably separable, the region allocated to its geometric expression. We formalize the CAZ through three layer-wise metrics (Separation, Concept Coherence, Concept Velocity) and derive principled boundary detection without manual layer sweeps. A CAZ is not a concept: it is the depth region within which the model organizes its geometry to make a concept separable. A single concept typically participates in multiple CAZes; multiple concepts may share one. Empirical validation across 34 models from 8 architectural families and 7 concepts reveals that the separation curve S(l) is frequently multimodal. A scored detector uncovers "gentle CAZes" -- subtle allocation regions invisible to standard peak detection but causally active in 93-100% of cases under ablation (16 of 34 models; 26 in the companion validation paper). The framework generates seven testable predictions; four yield clear verdicts (two not supported, one partially supported, one supported), one had its precondition invalidated by the data, and two are underpowered -- with cross-architecture alignment confirmed as depth-matched rather than monolithic under leave-one-concept-out cross-validation. Reference implementation: rosetta_tools v1.3.1 (doi:10.5281/zenodo.20361433).
James Henry
Sep 9, 2026cs.CL

Contrastive Projection: Reading Transformer Internals by Differencing Logit Lenses

Reading a transformer's internal states in token space is easy to do and hard to trust: a logit lens on a single hidden state is dominated, at intermediate layers, by the generic tokens the model would predict for almost any input. We read the difference instead. Subtracting two closely matched prompts' hidden states and projecting through the unembedding cancels the shared component and surfaces what separates them, an operation equivalent to reading a RepE/ActAdd steering vector through a logit lens. Built into a training-free tracer that reads at every position, sub-layer, and head and averages over designed baselines, it traces a compound- noun MLP->attention chain in Phi-2, confirmed there by activation patching, with the same distinction recovered across three architectures by readout and probe rather than by patching; it reads what retrieval surfaces for real versus fictional entities, and reads metaphor as a set of domain-to-domain mappings rather than a single figurativity feature. A cross-seed control marks the boundary: across five networks differing only in initialization, the same distinction surfaces as almost entirely different tokens (top-10 overlap 0.08). What a computation looks like in token space is network-specific; the distinction it draws is not
Olli Tuomi