Representation Geometry in Language Models
Overview
This field studies the shapes and relationships formed by token embeddings and hidden activations, and how those structures change across layers, contexts, and training. Researchers use linear probes, representational similarity analysis, spectral and manifold methods, sparse autoencoders, and causal interventions such as activation patching and steering. These tools are applied to questions about reasoning, multilingual transfer, retrieval, safety, and reliability, using settings that range from controlled synthetic tasks to benchmarks such as GSM8K and MTEB. A central open tension is that information being decodable or geometrically similar does not guarantee that a model uses it causally; useful structure may also be local, nonlinear, or sensitive to measurement choices.
Latest papers
417 papers78 papers in the last four weeks, up 34% on the four weeks before. 0.5% of all new papers.
Semantic Sections: An Atlas-Native Feature Ontology for Obstructed Representation Spaces
Weber's Law in Transformer Magnitude Representations: Efficient Coding, Representational Geometry, and Psychophysical Laws in Language Models
Thinking in Different Spaces: Domain-Specific Latent Geometry Survives Cross-Architecture Translation
GeoLAN: Geometric Learning of Latent Explanatory Directions in Large Language Models
Ventriloquist LLMs: Linear Alignment of Late-Stage Representations
Pretrained Multilingual Transformers Reveal Quantitative Distance Between Human Languages
Latent Semantic Manifolds in Large Language Models
A Representation-Level Assessment of Bias Mitigation in Foundation Models
Parametric Social Identity Injection and Diversification in Public Opinion Simulation
Learning to Recall with Transformers Beyond Orthogonal Embeddings
The Illusion of Latent Generalization: Bi-directionality and the Reversal Curse
$A > B$'' but failing on ''). Recent work shows that objectives with bidirectional supervision (e.g., bidirectional attention or masking-based reconstruction for decoder-only models) can mitigate the reversal curse. We extend this evaluation to include a vanilla masked language modeling (MLM) objective and compare it to decoder-only masking-based training across four reversal benchmarks and then provide a minimal mechanistic study of how these objectives succeed. We show that reversal accuracy requires training signal that explicitly makes the source entity a prediction target, and we find little evidence that success corresponds to a single direction-agnostic representation of a fact. Instead, representation distances and linear probes are consistent with storing forward and reverse directions as distinct entries, with different indexing geometry for MLM versus decoder-only masking-based training. Our results caution that objective-level ``fixes'' can improve reversal behavior without necessarily inducing the kind of latent generalization one might expect from a unified concept.