Tracing the complexity profiles of different linguistic phenomena through the intrinsic dimension of LLM representations
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We explore intrinsic dimension (ID) of LLM representations as a marker of linguistic complexity. Specifically, we test whether ID differences across model layers reflect well-known complexity contrasts established in (psycho)linguistics: coordination vs. subordination, right-branching vs. center-embedding, and unambiguous vs. ambiguous attachment. Our results on six different LLMs show that these contrasts are consistently reflected in ID differences, with more complex phenomena eliciting higher ID profiles. Notably, ID differences emerge at different points across layers for different contrasts, also reaching their peaks at different stages. Further experiments using representational similarity and layer pruning confirm the trends. We conclude that ID is a useful marker of linguistic complexity in LLMs, that it points to similar linguistic processing steps across disparate LLMs, and that it has the potential to differentiate between different types of complexity.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 13 Oct 2026). Builds on 30 of its 65 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Jan 2026.
Builds on
30 of 65 references.
References · 30
- 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,840
- 2016Pointer Sentinel Mixture Modelscited by 3,047
- 2024Gemma 2: Improving Open Language Models at a Practical Sizecited by 1,968
- 2023Pythia: A Suite for Analyzing Large Language Models Across Training and Scalingcited by 1,761
- 2019Similarity of Neural Network Representations Revisitedcited by 1,719
- 2020A Primer in BERTology: What we know about how BERT workscited by 809
- 2020Intrinsic Dimensionality Explains the Effectiveness of Language Model Fine-Tuningcited by 665
- 2018What you can cram into a single vector: Probing sentence embeddings for linguistic propertiescited by 455
- 2024The Platonic Representation Hypothesiscited by 369
- 2018Analysis Methods in Neural Language Processing: A Surveycited by 277
- 2018Estimating the intrinsic dimension of datasets by a minimal neighborhood informationcited by 247
- 2024The Remarkable Robustness of LLMs: Stages of Inference?cited by 143
18 more
- 2023Sudden Drops in the Loss: Syntax Acquisition, Phase Transitions, and Simplicity Bias in MLMscited by 121
- 2023Intrinsic Dimension Estimation for Robust Detection of AI-Generated Textscited by 112
- 2023The geometry of hidden representations of large transformer modelscited by 109
- 2020Syntactic Structure from Deep Learningcited by 99
- 2024Emergence of a High-Dimensional Abstraction Phase in Language Transformerscited by 56
- 2025How Linguistics Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Language Modelscited by 50
- 2025Do Language Models Use Their Depth Efficiently?cited by 49
- 2024Characterizing Truthfulness in Large Language Model Generations with Local Intrinsic Dimensioncited by 45
- 2023Bridging Information-Theoretic and Geometric Compression in Language Modelscited by 26
- 2024Decoding Probing: Revealing Internal Linguistic Structures in Neural Language Models using Minimal Pairscited by 24
- 2021Ranking the information content of distance measurescited by 22
- 2024The representation landscape of few-shot learning and fine-tuning in large language modelscited by 15
- 2024Geometric Signatures of Compositionality Across a Language Model's Lifetimecited by 15
- 2023Characterizing Large Language Model Geometry Helps Solve Toxicity Detection and Generationcited by 12
- 2025A quantitative analysis of semantic information in deep representations of text and imagescited by 7
- 2025Mechanisms vs. Outcomes: Probing for Syntax Fails to Explain Performance on Targeted Syntactic Evaluationscited by 7
- 2025Model Internal Sleuthing: Finding Lexical Identity and Inflectional Features in Modern Language Modelscited by 5
- 2025Not a nuisance but a useful heuristic: Outlier dimensions favor frequent tokens in language modelscited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.