A token-embedding table holds a hub of short rows near its origin, and we show that this cluster biases what nearest-neighbor intrinsic-dimension (ID) estimators report. Because of the concentration of measure, a token is closer to the central cluster than to any other token, so its first two neighbors are both hub rows at nearly the same distance. As a result, the ID estimators such as TwoNN return a dimension far above the real ID. Measured one token at a time, dimension is a heavy-tailed distribution. Measured on the full vocabulary, it grows with the model's parameter count. However, when we remove the hub, the heavy tail disappears and the measured dimension collapses to a narrow range for eleven models, from GPT-2 to models such as K3 and GLM-4.7. The hub acts as a switch: a few hundred rows are enough to fully inflate the estimate. We reproduced an experiment stating that the intrinsic dimension (ID) of Pythia's token-embedding table grows with the parameter count, from $27$ to $122$ between 160M and 12B parameters. We show that this result disappears when the hub is removed: the table then reads $10$ to $17$ at every size. The hub contains a subset of the population that under-trained-token detectors flag, but on Pythia the hub that we detected and removed as a whole was updated during training: what seem to characterize these rows is simply their length, not an absence of updates. Finally, we show that normalizing the rows instead of removing them gives the same lower reading.
On-policy self-distillation (OPSD) trains a student on its own responses using token-level supervision from the same model conditioned on privileged reference information. We investigate whether performance gains from OPSD show that the student learned the information in the reference or instead reflect recovery of reasoning behavior already present in the base model. We perform OPSD experiments on science and mathematics datasets using Qwen3 models ranging from 1.7B to 8B. Our analysis framework separates the supervision induced by the reference from the supervision provided by the teacher without the reference and measures how each aligns with changes in the student's predictions. The correct reference does not provide a consistent performance benefit across teacher generation modes, model sizes, and training datasets. Students can improve without the correct reference, and a solution from another problem can outperform the correct solution on several mathematical reasoning benchmarks. The student's predictions align more strongly with the base model's thinking behavior than with the supervision induced by the reference, but controls constructed from other problems reproduce much of both alignments. Moreover, stronger alignment attributable to the correct reference does not reliably coincide with a greater performance benefit from the reference. Performance gains and distributional alignment alone therefore cannot determine how privileged reference information contributes to student learning in OPSD.
For constructing text embeddings, mean pooling, which averages token embeddings, is the standard approach. This paper examines whether mean pooling actually works well in real models. First, we note that mean pooling can collapse information beyond the first-order statistics of the token embeddings, such as second-order statistics that capture their spatial structure, potentially mapping distinct token embedding distributions to similar text embeddings. Motivated by this concern, we propose a simple metric to quantify such a collapse induced by mean pooling. Then, using this metric, we empirically measure how often this collapse occurs in actual models and texts, and find that modern text encoders are robust to this collapse. In particular, contrastive fine-tuned text encoders tend to be less prone to the collapse than their pretrained backbone models. We also find that the robustness of these text encoders lies in the concentration of token embeddings within each text. In addition, we find that robustness to the collapse, as quantified by our proposed metric, correlates with downstream task performance. Overall, our findings offer a new perspective on why modern text encoders remain effective despite relying on seemingly coarse mean pooling.