Semantic Structure of Feature Space in Large Language Models

When it comes to generating vector representations of words, current language models are achieving high-quality results. However, what is not known is the extent to which knowledge about semantic relations is represented in the geometry of the semantic spaces created in this way. In order to answer this question, we study the relation geometry of such semantic spaces from three perspectives. We first examine whether words standing in a particular relation to a target word~(called relata) occupy the same region in semantic space, and whether the regions corresponding to different relations are distinct from each other. We then verify to what extent semantic spaces reflect certain well-known properties of relations, such as symmetry, asymmetry, and transitivity. Finally, we consider which information about the target words and relata is more important for relation geometry: their surface forms, or their contexts. We conduct experiments on six semantic relations using causal, masked, and diffusion language models. The results show that relata in asymmetric relations relatively clearly occupy a distinct region in semantic space. Asymmetric relations' properties are only moderately well encoded in the semantic space, yet better than those of symmetric ones. Furthermore, when considering the question which information source has the strongest impact on results amongst the models we evaluated, we find that lexical information tends to be more important for the causal language model, whereas contextual information is more important for the masked and diffusion language models. Our results empirically show that relation geometry is not equally well-represented for all relations in semantic space, suggesting that there is a difference in how well semantic relations might be learned from distributional information alone.

Abstract concepts - justice, theory, availability - have no single perceivable referent; in the human brain, their meaning emerges from a web of experiences, affect, and social context. Do large language models (LLMs) ground abstract concepts in a similar way? We study this by replicating property-generation experiments from cognitive science on 21 frontier and open-weight LLMs. Across models and experiments, we find a consistent pattern: when compared to humans, models rely too heavily on word associations, and underproduce properties tied to emotion and internal states. This yields a large and consistent grounding gap: no model exceeds a Pearson correlation r=0.37 with human responses, compared to a human-to-human ceiling above r=0.9. To better interpret this gap, we also replicate a rating experiment on grounding categories and find that here LLMs align more closely with human judgment, and alignment improves as models get larger. We then use sparse autoencoders (SAEs) to inspect whether this information is also reflected in the models' internal features, and we do identify features connected to grounding dimensions such as "sensorimotor" and "social". These findings suggest that current LLMs can recover grounding dimensions when explicitly queried, but do not recruit them in a human-like way when words are generated freely.

Large language models represent the same reasoning in vastly different surface forms -- English prose, Python code, mathematical notation -- yet whether they share a common internal substrate across these symbolic systems remains unknown. We introduce the TriForm Benchmark (18 concepts x 6 forms x 3 instances = 324 stimuli) and study five LLMs (1.6B-8B) across three architecture families. Using permutation-corrected RSA, cross-form probing, and activation patching, we find converging evidence for a Format-Agnostic Reasoning Subspace (FARS) in middle layers. We make FARS concrete: concept-centroid PCA extracts a 10-dimensional subspace that amplifies concept structure 3x while suppressing form information to near zero. Replacing only these 10 dimensions during cross-form patching preserves 90-96% of model output -- far exceeding both full activation replacement (44-56%) and variance-maximizing PCA (60-74%) -- while ablating them causes targeted disruption. FARS generalizes to held-out concepts and converges across architectures (CCA > 0.79 for all model pairs), providing within-modality evidence for the Platonic Representation Hypothesis. We further discover a declarative-procedural asymmetry: representations are far more compatible between prose and mathematics than between either and code, suggesting that the critical axis of divergence is not linguistic vs. formal but declarative vs. procedural.