Do Language Models Encode Semantic Relations? Probing and Sparse Feature Analysis

How do artificial neural networks bind concepts to form complex semantic structures? Here, we propose a simple neural code, whereby the existence and the type of relations between entities are represented by the distance and the direction between their embeddings, respectively. We test this hypothesis in a variety of Large Language Models (LLMs), each input with natural-language descriptions of minimalist tasks from five different domains: arithmetic, visual scenes, family trees, metro maps and social interactions. Results show that the true semantic structures can be linearly recovered with a Polar Probe targeting a subspace of LLMs' layer activations. Second, this code emerges mostly in middle layers and improves with LLM performance. Third, these Polar Probes successfully generalize to new entities and relation types, but degrades with the size of the semantic structure. Finally, the quality of the polar representation correlates with the LLM's ability to answer questions about the semantic structure. Together, these findings suggest that LLMs learn to build complex semantic structures by binding representations with a simple geometrical principle.

This paper studies the local geometry of semantic meaning in large language models. Current representation analyses ask whether meanings are close in embedding space, or whether linear probes separate semantic classes, but they do not characterize the within-concept local geometry: what is invariant across realizations of a single semantic factor, what varies, and what changes when meaning is refined. This paper characterizes that geometry through two controlled probes evaluated on four architecturally diverse decoder-only LLMs (Gemma 4, Llama 3.2, Qwen 2.5, Pythia). A cross-lingual probe uses language as a perturbation to separate exact meaning matches, same-factor realizations, nearby concepts, and out-of-domain contrasts. A refinement probe separates specificity-bearing semantic narrowing from high-probability attributive elaboration and adversarial controls; both probes are validated by blind human judgments. Four findings recur across all models: under mean pooling, once dominant variance directions are removed, sentence pairs order by semantic relatedness (same factor, then same domain, then different domain) without overlap over a band of layers; semantic factors organize around an invariant core surrounded by structured realization-specific variation; refinement produces directed displacement into tighter neighborhoods, including against controls built on the same base noun; and sentence-level and token-local readouts expose complementary geometry (volume contraction at the sentence level, sharper anisotropic endpoints at token-local readout). We interpret these results as evidence that LLM semantics are organized as local anisotropic neighborhoods in which meaning contracts under refinement.

We show that the geometric relations between semantic features in large language models' hidden states closely mirror human psychological associations. We construct feature vectors corresponding to 360 words and project them on 32 semantic axes (e.g. beautiful-ugly, soft-hard), and find that these projections correlate highly with human ratings of those words on the respective semantic scales. Second, we find that the cosine similarities between the semantic axes themselves are highly predictive of the correlations between these scales in the survey. Third, we show that substantial variance across the 32 semantic axes lies on a low-dimensional subspace, reproducing patterns typical of human semantic associations. Finally, we demonstrate that steering a word on one semantic axis causes spillover effects on the model's rating of that word on other semantic scales proportionate to the cosine similarity between those semantic axes. These findings suggest that features should be understood not only in isolation but through their geometric relations and the meaningful subspaces they form.