The Geometry of Emotion Representations Across Scale, Depth, and Instruction Tuning

Recent work identified emotion vectors in Claude Sonnet 4.5, which are internal representations that encode emotion concepts, causally influence behavior, and exhibit geometry mirroring human psychological structure. We test the generality of these findings in two open-weight models, Apertus-8B-Instruct-2509 and Gemma-4-E4B-it, extracting emotion contrast vectors across all layers, using two model-generated corpora. We recover valence geometry for both models, with peak PC1--valence correlations of $r = 0.76$ and $r = 0.83$, approaching the $r = 0.81$ reported for Claude.Beyond replication, we observe notable differences in how valence representations emerge across model depth. In Gemma-4-E4B-it, valence is strongly encoded in early layers but collapses towards later layers, whereas Apertus-8B-Instruct-2509 exhibits the opposite pattern, with valence representations absent in early layers, but emerging at mid depths. Arousal encoding, in contrast, is sensitive to the extraction corpus: both models show stronger PC2--arousal alignment with Gemma-generated stories ($r$ up to $0.45$) than Apertus-generated ones ($r \leq 0.21$), suggesting arousal-relevant cues are unevenly distributed across generated corpora. We open-source our experiment code and dataset for reproducible investigation of emotion representations across language model architectures.

We extract 21-emotion vector sets from twelve small language models (six architectures x base/instruct, 1B-8B parameters) under a unified comprehension-mode pipeline at fp16 precision, and compare the resulting geometries via representational similarity analysis on raw cosine RDMs. The five mature architectures (Qwen 2.5 1.5B, SmolLM2 1.7B, Llama 3.2 3B, Mistral 7B v0.3, Llama 3.1 8B) share nearly identical 21-emotion geometry, with pairwise RDM Spearman correlations of 0.74-0.92. This universality persists across diametrically opposed behavioral profiles: Qwen 2.5 and Llama 3.2 occupy opposite poles of MTI Compliance facets yet produce nearly identical emotion RDMs (rho = 0.81), so behavioral facet differences arise above the shared emotion representation. Gemma-3 1B base, the one immature case in our dataset, exhibits extreme residual-stream anisotropy (0.997) and is restructured by RLHF across all geometric descriptors, whereas the five already-mature families show within-family base x instruct RDM correlations of rho >= 0.92 (Mistral 7B v0.3 at rho = 0.985), suggesting RLHF restructures only representations that are not yet organized. Methodologically, we show that what prior work has read as a single comprehension-vs-generation method effect in fact decomposes into four distinct layers -- a coarse method-dependent dissociation, robust sub-parameter sensitivity within generation, a true precision (fp16 vs INT8) effect, and a conflated cross-experiment bias that distorts in opposite directions for different models -- so that a single rho between two prior emotion-vector studies is not a safe basis for interpretation without the layered decomposition.

Sofroniew et al. (2026) report that emotion concepts in Claude Sonnet 4.5 are represented as vectors whose geometry mirrors human affect psychology. We replicate the representational core of that study on the base pretrained model google/gemma-2-27b, inheriting every disclosed parameter, resolving unspecified steps by disclosed rules, and changing only the subject model. From 205,200 newly generated Claude Sonnet 4.5 stories matching the original corpus design, we extract 171 emotion vectors and recover the core results. The leading principal components form an affective circumplex (PC1 carries 26.7% of variance against the original study's ~27%, PC2 13.4% against ~14%), emotions cluster into similar intuitive families, and the geometry holds across a broad late-middle band. The valence axis aligns with human norms (r = 0.72, against 0.81) and is stable across scales and depth. Arousal aligns at r = 0.67 (against 0.66) but only at the full 171-emotion scale and late depth, so we do not classify it as replicated. Extending the original analysis, a 46-layer sweep locates a sharp seam at L22-26, where the geometry consolidates and the vocabulary readout becomes legible. An embedding-layer baseline finds much of the geometry already present in the static token embeddings, with arousal as the exception. On top-activating held-out text, the geometry predicts token-level co-activation at r = 0.907. At least 52% of vectors peak on structurally non-conceptual tokens, a measured floor for max-activation confounds. Even when a document contains the vector's emotion word, the peak lands on that word only 6.1% of the time. Because the subject is a base model and the stimuli are Claude-generated fiction, the recovered structure is a property of the pretrained representation of Claude-rendered emotion. The original's causal and assistant-facing analyses are out of scope. Code and data are released.