Papers
arxiv:2606.02765

Representational Capacity: Geometric Limits on Feature Representation in Transformer Language Models

Published on Jun 1
Authors:

Abstract

Research examines how model dimension influences feature representation geometry in transformers, establishing embedding matrices as proxies for near-orthogonality constraints and deriving refined capacity formulas that better predict representational limits.

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.

Community

Sign up or log in to comment

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2606.02765
Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash

Models citing this paper 0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2606.02765 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper 0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2606.02765 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper 0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2606.02765 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper 0

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to a collection to link it from this page.