mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Lingtai: What Concept Geometry Reveals--and Does Not Reveal--About LLM Inference

arXiv 2610.00656 ↗First posted 30 Sep 2026cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Observing what a large language model computes during autoregressive inference--online and without training probes--remains difficult. We introduce Lingtai, a training-free concept telemetry layer: at each generation step, residual states are projected onto a domain-specific bank of named concept anchors, constructed without labeled concept examples, outcome labels, gradient fitting, or activation-space optimization, producing a structured per-step concept-coordinate signal. Across code generation and grade-school mathematical reasoning, this signal exhibits a robust association with predictive uncertainty: the association survives problem-identity and token-position controls and is not attributable to a single token type, is not explained by a simple correct/incorrect mixture on GSM8K, and is not reproduced by matched random anchors; it is markedly weaker or direction-inconsistent in K-means and PCA projections. Two structures emerge: a recurring uncertainty-linked activity signal whose functional geometry is task-conditioned (distinct activity-entropy shapes on HumanEval, MBPP, and GSM8K), and an execution-specific trajectory identity with strong local inertia but weak re-instantiation invariance--under completion-only elastic alignment, corruption at k=32 (approximately a median quarter of the completion) on the matched re-execution subset still retrieves the archived episode at 62.0%, while a fresh execution retrieves it only 11.7-16.0% of the time. Finally, a matched audit finds no evidence that the scalar concept-activity signal used here supplies a stable correctness coordinate under the tested protocol; we therefore treat correctness as externally supplied. Telemetry adds 0.7-1.6% per-token decode overhead for the 161-anchor code implementation, with unchanged generated tokens.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Sep 2026.

Builds on

24 of 30 references.

References · 24

  1. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
  2. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
  3. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,960
  4. 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,637
  5. 2022Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTcited by 2,691
  6. 2020Extracting Training Data from Large Language Modelscited by 2,189
  7. 2022Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Knowcited by 1,856
  8. 2019Similarity of Neural Network Representations Revisitedcited by 1,755
  9. 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,420
  10. 2016Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probescited by 1,353
  11. 2023Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparencycited by 1,336
  12. 2017Interpretability Beyond Feature Attribution: Quantitative Testing with Concept Activation Vectors (TCAV)cited by 1,319
12 more
  1. 2024Qwen2.5-Coder Technical Reportcited by 1,203
  2. 2022Interpretability in the Wild: a Circuit for Indirect Object Identification in GPT-2 smallcited by 1,165
  3. 2021Probing Classifiers: Promises, Shortcomings, and Advancescited by 876
  4. 2023Semantic Uncertainty: Linguistic Invariances for Uncertainty Estimation in Natural Language Generationcited by 819
  5. 2019Designing and Interpreting Probes with Control Taskscited by 640
  6. 2024Gemma Scope: Open Sparse Autoencoders Everywhere All At Once on Gemma 2cited by 394
  7. 2024INSIDE: LLMs' Internal States Retain the Power of Hallucination Detectioncited by 323
  8. 2026Scaling Monosemanticity: Extracting Interpretable Features from Claude 3 Sonnetcited by 191
  9. 2024OpenCoder: The Open Cookbook for Top-Tier Code Large Language Modelscited by 130
  10. 2024LLM Internal States Reveal Hallucination Risk Faced With a Querycited by 82
  11. 2025The LLM Already Knows: Estimating LLM-Perceived Question Difficulty via Hidden Representationscited by 29
  12. 2025FastCAV: Efficient Computation of Concept Activation Vectors for Explaining Deep Neural Networkscited by 5

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Laguerre Geometry for Interpreting Large Language Models
  2. 2026A Geometric Perspective on Next-Token Prediction in Large Language Models: Three Emerging Phases
  3. 2026Stories in Space: In-Context Learning Trajectories in Conceptual Belief Space
  4. 2026Encoded but Not Actionable: Auditing the Decode-Generate-Steer Gap in Frozen LLMs for Geometric Constraints
  5. 2026Geometric Deviation as an Unsupervised Pre-Generation Reliability Signal: Probing LLM Representations for Answerability
  6. 2024Exploring Concept Depth: How Large Language Models Acquire Knowledge and Concept at Different Layers?
  7. 2026Beyond Linear Concepts: Discovering and Aligning Non-Linear Concept Manifolds in Large Language Models
  8. 2026LLM Reasoning as Trajectories: Step-Specific Representation Geometry and Correctness Signals