A theory of platonic representations in language models
Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Machine Learning.
The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Machine Learning.
The study compares an English-only and a bilingual decoder-only model, each 310 M parameters, trained on eight diverse languages while controlling for English exposure, compute, and document overlap. After aligning on shared English vocabulary, the authors find that token embeddings appear similar, but the deeper hidden states used for prediction diverge across models. This hidden‑state mismatch grows through middle transformer layers and persists despite controls, indicating that contextual processing differs between the models. "whyItMatters":"The findings show that embedding alignment can conceal significant internal representation differences, which is crucial for any downstream work that assumes aligned multilingual models are interchangeable."
The paper explores structural transfer, where models are first trained on non-language data such as music, probabilistic grammars, and cellular automata to induce priors for natural language tasks. This pretraining acts as a weight initialization for multilingual language modeling and leads to lower next-token prediction loss and smaller weight shifts during subsequent language training. However, the improved loss does not consistently translate into better downstream linguistic performance, and the efficiency of non-language data is lower than that of additional language data.
The paper investigates why large language models sometimes hallucinate when asked about facts in a language different from the one in which the facts were learned. By training small Transformer models on synthetic multilingual datasets, the authors show that the degree of correlation between facts and their learning language (informativeness) and the ease of language identification (extractability) determine whether models develop unified or separate representations across languages. Unified representations enable cross‑lingual fact transfer, while separate representations do not. The study proposes a unifying perspective on cross‑lingual transfer and suggests training methods to promote representational unification.
The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) share a common Fisher‑Rao geometry in their next‑token probability distributions, revealing that behaviour largely determines this geometry while activation geometry depends on coordinate choices. Across transformer, state‑space, and recurrent architectures, output geometries align more closely than activation geometries, and this shared structure facilitates semantic‑category transfer and improves agreement with human word choices as models scale and train. The study further demonstrates that geometry can guide minimum‑disturbance interventions, enabling reusable control that preserves behaviour better than Euclidean methods and enhances steering, editing, attribution, dictionary learning, and fine‑tuning.
The study investigates whether monolingual language models, trained without joint multilingual objectives, develop cross-lingual alignment. By evaluating models such as Goldfish and independently built monolingual systems, the authors find that alignable representational geometry emerges across layers, strengthening with larger data, larger models, or closer linguistic proximity. A single Procrustes rotation on parallel sentences can map hidden states between models, and applying this rotation to a German model’s residuals swaps factual predictions to those of the donor English model, demonstrating functional transfer.
Large language models (LLMs) trained on next-token prediction exhibit remarkable in-context learning (ICL) abilities, yet the representations that support ICL remain poorly understood. We consider suc...