Scale Determines Whether Language Models Organize Representation Geometry for Prediction

We investigate the geometry of predictive information across the layers of large language models (LLMs). We repurpose representation lenses-learned affine maps trained to predict the next token from intermediate residual streams-as geometric diagnostic tools. Rather than asking what the model predicts at each layer, we ask where predictive information resides and how it evolves across depth. We define at each layer a predictive readout subspace as the dominant k-dimensional singular subspace of such a map on the d-dimensional residual stream (where k is a resolution parameter), and track its trajectory on the Grassmann manifold as a similarity profile across layers. The profile is well described by unimodal distributions exhibiting a rise, near-plateau, and descent; varying k from 1% to 50% of d traces a Pareto frontier between visibility and energy retention, yet the same structure emerges at all scales. Across eight models from two families (Qwen2.5 and OLMo2, 1B-32B), we identify three geometric phases. Updates are approximately orthogonal to the residual stream throughout; what distinguishes the phases is their effect on the effective rank, which expands, stabilizes, and concentrates. In the first, Seeding Multiplexing, feed-forward memories and attention layers seed a candidate set in superposition in family-specific proportions, with the final token rising as leading candidate from 20% to 35% of positions across this phase. In the second, Hoisting Overriding, updates override existing subspaces to concentrate the candidate distribution without expanding the rank. In the third, Focal Convergence, high-energy low-rank updates write the winner into a form aligned with the unembedding direction. Phases 1 and 3 grow slowly with model depth, while Phase 2 expands linearly. The additional capacity of deeper LLMs is largely absorbed by candidate disambiguation.

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.

Large language models represent the same reasoning in vastly different surface forms -- English prose, Python code, mathematical notation -- yet whether they share a common internal substrate across these symbolic systems remains unknown. We introduce the TriForm Benchmark (18 concepts x 6 forms x 3 instances = 324 stimuli) and study five LLMs (1.6B-8B) across three architecture families. Using permutation-corrected RSA, cross-form probing, and activation patching, we find converging evidence for a Format-Agnostic Reasoning Subspace (FARS) in middle layers. We make FARS concrete: concept-centroid PCA extracts a 10-dimensional subspace that amplifies concept structure 3x while suppressing form information to near zero. Replacing only these 10 dimensions during cross-form patching preserves 90-96% of model output -- far exceeding both full activation replacement (44-56%) and variance-maximizing PCA (60-74%) -- while ablating them causes targeted disruption. FARS generalizes to held-out concepts and converges across architectures (CCA > 0.79 for all model pairs), providing within-modality evidence for the Platonic Representation Hypothesis. We further discover a declarative-procedural asymmetry: representations are far more compatible between prose and mathematics than between either and code, suggesting that the critical axis of divergence is not linguistic vs. formal but declarative vs. procedural.