On the Persistent Effects of Lexicality in Large Language Models

Representations extracted from large language models (LLMs) play an important role in many downstream applications. However, the structure of these representations is often influenced by lexical overlap rather than semantic content. Our understanding of the relationship between this lexical influence and semantic content, and its implications for downstream tasks, remains limited. In this work, we investigate representations to quantify the effect of lexical overlap relative to semantic content. We consider several adversarial semantic stress tests and further connect our findings to the information theory perspective. We find that lexical influence extends across the depth of models, consistently across architectures, training regimes, and objective functions, including the models trained for semantic similarity. Moreover, we observe a mid-depth region in which both lexical and semantic signals degrade simultaneously, indicating a transitional regime where representations are poor for both surface form and meaning. We further demonstrate the effect of lexical influence on downstream uses of LLMs using summarization and model editing as a case study.

Mechanistic Diagnostics of Spatial Lexical Bias in Multimodal Large Language Model Spatial Reasoning

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) remain unreliable on spatial multiple-choice questions, and their failures are often attributed to poorly attended visual information. In this work, we identify a complementary failure mode, spatial lexical bias: adding a spatial relation word to the answer options can attract the model's decision and make the newly added option likely to be selected. Using nine open-weight MLLMs, we show that this phenomenon is widely observed. In particular, models can answer a binary spatial question correctly, yet consistently select an incorrect third spatial option once it is added to the answer set. We isolate such binary-stable but ternary-fragile cases as diagnostic examples and leverage mechanistic interpretability tools, revealing that a substantial part of the failure instead originates on the language side rather than the visual side: visual attention analyses and residual-stream probes show the correct spatial relation remains internally available on these failures, while irrelevant-option controls, activation patching, and sparse component interventions trace the bias to specific LLM-side channels and neurons. Based on this finding, we show that a lightweight LLM-only DPO update on tiny single-object-pair synthetic data mitigates the bias, lifting four-way robust accuracy by up to 100 points on synthetic data, and by 68.0, 32.6, and 20.1 points on broader evaluation datasets WhatsUp, SpatialMQA-Direct, and VSR.