Autoregressive Mosaics: Probing 2D Spatial Reasoning in Text-Only Language Models
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Large language models (LLMs) trained only on text and code can sometimes generate programs that draw recognizable images. However, it is unclear whether this reflects an internal representation of 2D...
The paper audits frozen decoder‑only large language models (LLMs) on geometric reasoning tasks using parametric CAD constraints. It probes hidden states for linear decodability, forced‑choice generation, activation‑level influence, and behavioral steerability, finding that pretraining improves decoding of local geometric relations but not sketch‑level DOF status. The study shows that decodable information is not always actionable: generation often fails to express it, and steering interventions do not reliably control outputs, revealing divergences among decodability, generation, activation influence, and steerability.
The paper introduces domain-specific languages (DSLs) as an explicit representation layer to bridge the gap between high-level natural-language abstractions and concrete actions. Experiments on the visually-grounded “Hexagons” task and the “Text2CAD” benchmark show that code generation using a human-curated DSL yields dramatic performance gains, especially at higher abstraction levels, while automatically induced DSLs only partially recover these gains. The study highlights that the right representation can close much of the performance gap caused by abstraction, but that automatically learning such representations remains a challenge.
arXiv:2606. 04381v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Recent large language models (LLMs) often appear to exhibit spatial reasoning ability; however, this capability is largely \emph{symbolic}, arising from pattern matching over spatial language rather than true \emph{geometric} reasoning over space.
Recent large language models (LLMs) often appear to exhibit spatial reasoning ability; however, this capability is largely \emph{symbolic}, arising from pattern matching over spatial language rather than true \emph{geometric} reasoning over space. Because LLMs operate on discrete tokens, they lack native support for continuous spatial representations, explicit geometric computation, and structured spatial operators.
arXiv:2609.34826v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Humans often solve spatial problems by mentally simulating visual transformations. In contrast, conventional vision-language models (VLMs) reason p...