Trajectory Geometry of Transformer Representations Across Layers

Paper · arXiv 2606.09287 · Published June 8, 2026
Reasoning Architectures

Understanding how transformer representations evolve across layers not merely what they encode remains an open problem in mechanistic interpretability. We recast the transformer forward pass as a discrete population trajectory through a high-dimensional representation manifold, drawing on geometric tools from computational neuroscience. Rather than probing for pre-specified features, we characterize the intrinsic geometry of these trajectories using five metrics computed directly in the ambient space: trajectory length, curvature, a semantic convergence index, layerwise cosine similarity, and representational stability. Across three model families (GPT-2, TinyLlama, Qwen2.5) and five semantically controlled prompt families, we report four principal findings. First, semantically related prompts undergo statistically significant trajectory convergence in middle-to-late layers, with peak convergence indices of 0.41–0.58 across architectures (p < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U), consistent with attractor-like dynamics. Second, reasoning and analogy tasks produce trajectories of significantly greater curvature than lexical variation tasks (0.71–0.83 rad vs. 0.27–0.31 rad), suggesting that mean curvature encodes computational complexity.

Introduction. While modern transformers [1] achieve remarkable performance across diverse natural language tasks, the internal mechanisms governing their representations remain largely opaque. Existing interpretability approaches operate primarily in two regimes: mechanistic analyses that trace individual attention heads and circuit-level computations [2, 3], and static analyses that probe layer-wise embeddings for pre-specified linguistic features [4, 5]. Both paradigms treat each layer as an independent snapshot, ignoring the continuous geometric structure of how representations evolve across the depth of the network. We propose a complementary perspective: the transformer forward pass as a discrete population trajectory through a high-dimensional representation manifold. Rather than probing for what is encoded at a given layer, we ask how representations travel from input to output, characterizing the geometry of the path itself.

Discussion / Conclusion. Our four findings collectively support a coherent picture: the transformer forward pass implements a structured geometric flow through representation space, with distinct computational phases, task-sensitive path geometry, and learned disambiguation dynamics. We discuss the theoretical implications, connections to prior work, practical consequences, and limitations of this view. Implications for Interpretability and Alignment: Beyond descriptive geometry, our findings suggest several actionable directions. First, the layer-resolved map of computational phases provides a principled basis for layer selection in representation engineering: interventions targeting semantic content should be applied in Phase II (elaboration), while output-vocabulary interventions belong in Phase III.

Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24

Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.

Why do reasoning models fail on certain types of tasks? What drives generalization in language models beyond scale and training data? Does chain-of-thought reasoning faithfully reveal how models actually think and decide? What are the actual limits of what prompting techniques can accomplish? How can we detect and prevent model reward hacking? Should agent evaluation prioritize trajectory quality alongside task success? How well do mechanistic interpretability findings map to models' actual reasoning? How does transformer attention systematically bias models toward sycophancy and prominence? What causes models to develop emergent misalignment during training? How do conversation patterns and repair mechanisms affect dialogue success? Does separating planning from execution improve multi-step reasoning accuracy? Can readers reliably detect AI involvement or authorship in text? Does language meaning require embodied interaction beyond relational structure? Why do language models fail at implicit discourse while succeeding with explicit connectives?