Relational Rank Geometry in Transformers: Detecting and Steering Hidden-State Relation Frames
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Transformer hidden states are often interpreted through local or low-order objects: neurons, sparse features, attention heads, residual-stream directions, or activation patches. This paper studies a complementary object: the rank-indexed geometry of relations among token tuples. I use Plucker sign entropy to test whether r-argument relations leave arity-matched orientation signatures in hidden-state space. Across Llama-family 8B, 70B, and 405B checkpoints, true relation tuples show stronger orientation-sign consistency at the expected rank k=r for r=3,...,6 than scrambled tuples under matched random-control audits. Multi-template audits show that the effects survive surface variation, with all tested 405B rows retaining positive expected-rank margins and 8B/70B retaining positive rows with constructor-specific mixed cells. I then ask whether the same relation geometry can be steered. In an edge-grid clean/corrupt intervention assay over 32 prompts, the row/column scaffold and answer format stay fixed while the YES/NO relation map changes, and the corrupt hidden-state relation frame is patched toward clean or placebo targets. In 70B and 405B, clean-targeted relation-frame paths recover clean-answer behavior and residual relation geometry, while centroid-only and equal-norm controls show negligible recovery. Site/order controls further separate marker-site importance from ordered clean-frame geometry: target clean shape and cross-prompt clean shape recover behavior and residual geometry at the marker interface, whereas corrupt-donor transfer, same-site permutation/reflection, wrong-site clean deltas, centroid-only motion, and equal-norm noise fail or remain far below clean-frame paths. The result is a controlled bridge from relation probing to relation-frame intervention: relation rank geometry can be detected, targeted, and behaviorally validated in transformer hidden states.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 May 2026.
Builds on
20 of 27 references.
References · 20
- 2022Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTcited by 2,609
- 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,359
- 2022Interpretability in the Wild: a Circuit for Indirect Object Identification in GPT-2 smallcited by 1,130
- 2023Towards Automated Circuit Discovery for Mechanistic Interpretabilitycited by 700
- 2023The Linear Representation Hypothesis and the Geometry of Large Language Modelscited by 679
- 2021Causal Abstractions of Neural Networkscited by 401
- 2023Attribution Patching Outperforms Automated Circuit Discoverycited by 196
- 2023Linearity of Relation Decoding in Transformer Language Modelscited by 190
- 2020Networks beyond pairwise interactions: structure and dynamicscited by 127
- 2023How do Language Models Bind Entities in Context?cited by 102
- 2018Simplicial Closure and higher-order link predictioncited by 92
- 2026Do Sparse Autoencoders Capture Concept Manifolds?cited by 25
8 more
- 2024A polar coordinate system represents syntax in large language modelscited by 24
- 2026Manifold Steering Reveals the Shared Geometry of Neural Network Representation and Behaviorcited by 22
- 2026The Shape of Beliefs: Geometry, Dynamics, and Interventions along Representation Manifolds of Language Models' Posteriorscited by 15
- 2026Interpretability without actionability: mechanistic methods cannot correct language model errors despite near-perfect internal representationscited by 13
- 2026Arithmetic in the Wild: Llama uses Base-10 Addition to Reason About Cyclic Conceptscited by 9
- 2025Hypothesis-Driven Feature Manifold Analysis in LLMs via Supervised Multi-Dimensional Scalingcited by 6
- 2026Cell-Based Representation of Relational Binding in Language Modelscited by 5
- 2026Evaluating Relational Reasoning in LLMs with RELcited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.