Fisher-IRG: Fisher-Induced Local Invariant Representation Geometry across Language and Vision Models

Language models exhibit strong robustness to paraphrasing, suggesting that semantic information may be encoded through stable internal representations, yet the structure and origin of such invariance remain unclear. We propose a local geometric framework in which semantically equivalent inputs occupy structured regions in latent space, with paraphrastic variation along nuisance directions and semantic identity preserved in invariant subspaces. Building on this view, we make three contributions: (1) a geometric characterization of invariant latent features, (2) a contrastive subspace discovery method that separates semantic-changing from semantic-preserving variation, and (3) an application of invariant representations to zero-shot model attribution. Across models and layers, empirical results support these contributions. Invariant structure emerges in specific depth regions, semantic displacement lies largely outside the nuisance subspace, and representation-level interventions indicate a causal role of invariant components in model outputs. Invariant representations also capture model-specific geometric patterns, enabling accurate attribution. These findings suggest that semantic invariance can be viewed as a local geometric property of latent representations, offering a principled perspective on how language models organize meaning.

Activation steering methods modify intermediate representations of language models to control output behavior, but universally assume the activation space is Euclidean. We show this assumption fails drastically: the local geometry induced by the model's own output behavior -- the Fisher information metric of the softmax layer, pulled back through the Jacobian of subsequent layers -- deviates from the Euclidean metric by over 97% in relative spectral norm on GPT-2, with an effective dimensionality of only 2--17% of the ambient space. From this pullback Fisher metric, we derive a closed-form steering equation that identifies the minimum-distortion direction for any target concept, yielding a closed-form optimal direction at each point that can be applied iteratively without manifold fitting or data-driven geometry estimation. We call the resulting framework FishBack. The metric admits a layer-wise recursive decomposition, which reveals that existing methods -- CAA, ActAdd, ITI, and others -- each implicitly adopt a particular approximate metric, and that their performance gaps are quantitatively predicted by a single spectral diagnostic: the ratio of their implicit metric's cost to the Fisher-optimal cost. On GPT-2, iterative pullback steering consistently outperforms all Euclidean baselines across three verb-morphology concepts and four layers, with off-target KL reductions of $1.3\times$--$2.5\times$ relative to Euclidean gradient ascent and $1.5\times$ relative to CAA at matched concept probability.

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.