How Many Features Can a Language Model Store Under the Linear Representation Hypothesis?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We introduce a mathematical framework for the linear representation hypothesis (LRH), which asserts that intermediate layers of language models store features linearly. We separate the hypothesis into two claims: linear representation (features are linearly embedded in neuron activations) and linear accessibility (features can be linearly decoded). We then ask: How many neurons d suffice to both linearly represent and linearly access m features? Classical results in compressed sensing imply that for k-sparse inputs, d = O(klog (m/k)) suffices if we allow non-linear decoding algorithms (Candes and Tao, 2006; Candes et al., 2006; Donoho, 2006). However, the additional requirement of linear decoding takes the problem out of the classical compressed sensing, into linear compressed sensing. Our main theoretical result establishes nearly-matching upper and lower bounds for linear compressed sensing. We prove that d = Omegaε(frack2log klog (m/k)) is required while d = Oε(k2log m) suffices. The lower bound establishes a quantitative gap between classical and linear compressed setting, illustrating how linear accessibility is a meaningfully stronger hypothesis than linear representation alone. The upper bound confirms that neurons can store an exponential number of features under the LRH, giving theoretical evidence for the "superposition hypothesis" (Elhage et al., 2022). The upper bound proof uses standard random constructions of matrices with approximately orthogonal columns. The lower bound proof uses rank bounds for near-identity matrices (Alon, 2003) together with Tur'an's theorem (bounding the number of edges in clique-free graphs). We also show how our results do and do not constrain the geometry of feature representations and extend our results to allow decoders with an activation function and bias.
Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Feb 2026.
Builds on
20 of 29 references.
References · 20
- 2013Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionalitycited by 3,462
- 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,359
- 2016Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probescited by 1,279
- 2023Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparencycited by 1,239
- 2023Steering Llama 2 via Contrastive Activation Additioncited by 1,009
- 2022Toy Models of Superpositioncited by 928
- 2023Steering Language Models With Activation Engineeringcited by 824
- 2023The Linear Representation Hypothesis and the Geometry of Large Language Modelscited by 679
- 2024Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoderscited by 530
- 2023Emergent Linear Representations in World Models of Self-Supervised Sequence Modelscited by 313
- 2025Persona Vectors: Monitoring and Controlling Character Traits in Language Modelscited by 303
- 2024Not All Language Model Features Are One-Dimensionally Linearcited by 201
8 more
- 2025Sparse Autoencoders Trained on the Same Data Learn Different Featurescited by 86
- 2025Persona Features Control Emergent Misalignmentcited by 76
- 2025Language Models Use Trigonometry to Do Additioncited by 68
- 2025Projecting Assumptions: The Duality Between Sparse Autoencoders and Concept Geometrycited by 58
- 2024Recurrent Neural Networks Learn to Store and Generate Sequences using Non-Linear Representationscited by 45
- 2025From Flat to Hierarchical: Extracting Sparse Representations with Matching Pursuitcited by 45
- 2025(How) Do Language Models Track State?cited by 31
- 2025Sparse Autoencoders for Hypothesis Generationcited by 24
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 11.
11 papers.
- 2026Stop Probing, Start Coding: Why Linear Probes and Sparse Autoencoders Fail at Compositional Generalisationcited by 5
- 2026The Scaling Properties of Implicit Deductive Reasoning in Transformerscited by 1
- 2026An expressivity analysis of hierarchical modelling in deep transformers via bounded-depth grammarscited by 1
- 2026Similarity of Neural Network Representations in Superpositioncited by 0
- 2026Semantic Structure of Feature Space in Large Language Modelscited by 0
- 2026Adversarial Concept Search: Predicting Compositional Errors From Feature Geometrycited by 0
- 2026High-probability guarantees for linear accessibility in feature superpositioncited by 0
- 2026The Linear Representation Hypothesis Needs a Group Actioncited by 0
- 2026The Linear Representation Hypothesis for Vision-Language-Action Modelscited by 0
- 2026Interference Beyond Geometry in Concept Extractioncited by 0
- 2026When Models Don't Manipulate Manifolds: The Geometry of a Comparison Taskcited by 0
- 2026When Models Don't Manipulate Manifolds: The Geometry of a Comparison Task29 Sep 2026
- 2026Interference Beyond Geometry in Concept Extraction28 Sep 2026
- 2026The Linear Representation Hypothesis for Vision-Language-Action Models25 Sep 2026
- 2026The Linear Representation Hypothesis Needs a Group Action22 Sep 2026
- 2026High-probability guarantees for linear accessibility in feature superposition9 Sep 2026
- 2026An expressivity analysis of hierarchical modelling in deep transformers via bounded-depth grammars16 Jun 2026
- 2026Adversarial Concept Search: Predicting Compositional Errors From Feature Geometry11 Jun 2026
- 2026The Scaling Properties of Implicit Deductive Reasoning in Transformers5 May 2026
- 2026Semantic Structure of Feature Space in Large Language Models29 Apr 2026
- 2026Similarity of Neural Network Representations in Superposition31 Mar 2026
- 2026Stop Probing, Start Coding: Why Linear Probes and Sparse Autoencoders Fail at Compositional Generalisation30 Mar 2026