CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 46Topic ModelingMultimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsNatural Language Processing Techniques

Language Models Represent Space and Time

Open access
Gurnee, Wes, Tegmark, Max·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2310.02207arXiv 2310.02207
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have sparked debate over whether such systems just learn an enormous collection of superficial statistics or a set of more coherent and grounded representations that reflect the real world. We find evidence for the latter by analyzing the learned representations of three spatial datasets (world, US, NYC places) and three temporal datasets (historical figures, artworks, news headlines) in the Llama-2 family of models. We discover that LLMs learn linear representations of space and time across multiple scales. These representations are robust to prompting variations and unified across different entity types (e.g. cities and landmarks). In addition, we identify individual "space neurons" and "time neurons" that reliably encode spatial and temporal coordinates. While further investigation is needed, our results suggest modern LLMs learn rich spatiotemporal representations of the real world and possess basic ingredients of a world model.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2310.02207

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Recent large language models have demonstrated the presence of latent world knowledge, capturing intuitive knowledge including spatial and temporal understanding, which enables them to make predictions about real-world scenarios.

    “In the recent wave of works on large language models starting from 2023, several have demonstrated the presence of latent world knowledge.In other words, these models capture intuitive knowledge, including spatial and temporal understanding, which enables them to make predictions about real-world scenarios [64,133].”

    From Understanding World or Predicting Future? A Comprehensive Survey of World Models (2026) · cites this paper as [64]

    The Abstract and Introduction report evidence that LLMs encode real-world spatial and temporal information. The Introduction says researchers used probes trained on model activations to predict locations and times; it does not establish that this knowledge enables the models themselves to predict real-world scenarios more generally. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The parameters of modern LLMs encode a remarkable amount of world knowledge.

    “It is well-accepted, even among skeptical researchers, that the parameters of modern LLMs encode a remarkable amount of world knowledge [2, 12, 23, 28, 31, 39, 62, 79], which can be leveraged by an LLM in flexible and robust ways [81, 83, 93].”

    From HippoRAG: Neurobiologically Inspired Long-Term Memory for Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [28]

  • Specific neurons encode space and time, demonstrating internal models that remain robust to variations in prompting.

    “some studies have identified specific neurons that encode space and time, demonstrating internal models that remain robust to variations in prompting [9].”

    From From Text to Space: Mapping Abstract Spatial Models in LLMs during a Grid-World Navigation Task (2025) · cites this paper as [9]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. Mostafa Abdou, Artur Kulmizev, Daniel Hershcovich, Stella Frank, Ellie Pavlick, and Anders Søgaard. Can language models encode perceptual structure without grounding? a case study in color. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.06129, 2021. · arXiv
  2. Guillaume Alain and Yoshua Bengio. Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.01644, 2016. · arXiv
  3. Issa Annamoradnejad and Rahimberdi Annamoradnejad. Age dataset: A structured general-purpose dataset on life, work, and death of 1.22 million distinguished people. International AAAI Confer- ence on Web and Social Media (ICWSM), 16, 2022.
  4. Yonatan Belinkov. Probing classifiers: Promises, shortcomings, and advances. Computational Linguistics, 48(1):207-219, 2022.
  5. Emily M Bender and Alexander Koller. Climbing towards nlu: On meaning, form, and under- standing in the age of data. In Proceedings of the 58th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, pp. 5185-5198, 2020.
  6. Emily M Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Shmargaret Shmitchell. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, pp. 610-623, 2021.
  7. Stella Biderman, Hailey Schoelkopf, Quentin Gregory Anthony, Herbie Bradley, Kyle O'Brien, Eric Hallahan, Mohammad Aflah Khan, Shivanshu Purohit, USVSN Sai Prashanth, Edward Raff, et al. Pythia: A suite for analyzing large language models across training and scaling. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 2397-2430. PMLR, 2023.
  8. Yonatan Bisk, Ari Holtzman, Jesse Thomason, Jacob Andreas, Yoshua Bengio, Joyce Chai, Mirella Lapata, Angeliki Lazaridou, Jonathan May, Aleksandr Nisnevich, et al. Experience grounds lan- guage. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.10151, 2020. · arXiv
  9. Rishi Bommasani, Drew A Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ Altman, Simran Arora, Sydney von Arx, Michael S Bernstein, Jeannette Bohg, Antoine Bosselut, Emma Brunskill, et al. On the opportu- nities and risks of foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258, 2021. · arXiv
  10. Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Ka- mar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, et al. Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12712, 2023. · arXiv
  11. Collin Burns, Haotian Ye, Dan Klein, and Jacob Steinhardt. Discovering latent knowledge in lan- guage models without supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.03827, 2022. · arXiv
  12. György Buzsáki and Rodolfo Llinás. Space and time in the brain. Science, 358(6362):482-485, 2017.
  13. Hoagy Cunningham, Aidan Ewart, Logan Riggs, Robert Huben, and Lee Sharkey. Sparse autoen- coders find highly interpretable features in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.08600, 2023. · arXiv
  14. Nelson Elhage, Tristan Hume, Catherine Olsson, Nicholas Schiefer, Tom Henighan, Shauna Kravec, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Robert Lasenby, Dawn Drain, Carol Chen, et al. Toy models of superposi- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.10652, 2022b. · arXiv
  15. Mor Geva, Jasmijn Bastings, Katja Filippova, and Amir Globerson. Dissecting recall of factual associations in auto-regressive language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.14767, 2023. · arXiv
  16. Gabriel Goh, Nick Cammarata, Chelsea Voss, Shan Carter, Michael Petrov, Ludwig Schubert, Alec Radford, and Chris Olah. Multimodal neurons in artificial neural networks. Distill, 6(3):e30, 2021.
  17. Abhijeet Gupta, Gemma Boleda, Marco Baroni, and Sebastian Padó. Distributional vectors encode referential attributes. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 12-21, 2015.
  18. Wes Gurnee, Neel Nanda, Matthew Pauly, Katherine Harvey, Dmitrii Troitskii, and Dimitris Bert- simas. Finding neurons in a haystack: Case studies with sparse probing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.01610, 2023. · arXiv
  19. Torkel Hafting, Marianne Fyhn, Sturla Molden, May-Britt Moser, and Edvard I Moser. Microstruc- ture of a spatial map in the entorhinal cortex. Nature, 436(7052):801-806, 2005.
  20. Michael Hanna, Ollie Liu, and Alexandre Variengien. How does gpt-2 compute greater-than?: Inter- preting mathematical abilities in a pre-trained language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.00586, 2023. · arXiv
  21. Trevor Hastie, Robert Tibshirani, Jerome H Friedman, and Jerome H Friedman. The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction, volume 2. Springer, 2009.
  22. Dan Hendrycks, Mantas Mazeika, and Thomas Woodside. An overview of catastrophic ai risks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.12001, 2023. · arXiv
  23. Evan Hernandez, Arnab Sen Sharma, Tal Haklay, Kevin Meng, Martin Wattenberg, Jacob Andreas, Yonatan Belinkov, and David Bau. Linearity of relation decoding in transformer language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.09124, 2023. · arXiv
  24. Michal Konkol, Tomáš Brychcín, Michal Nykl, and Tomáš Hercig. Geographical evaluation of word embeddings. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pp. 224-232, 2017.
  25. Belinda Z Li, Maxwell Nye, and Jacob Andreas. Implicit representations of meaning in neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.00737, 2021. · arXiv
  26. Kenneth Li, Aspen K Hopkins, David Bau, Fernanda Viégas, Hanspeter Pfister, and Martin Watten- berg. Emergent world representations: Exploring a sequence model trained on a synthetic task. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.13382, 2022. · arXiv
  27. Bastien Liétard, Mostafa Abdou, and Anders Søgaard. Do language models know the way to rome? arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07971, 2021. · arXiv
  28. Leo Z Liu, Yizhong Wang, Jungo Kasai, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Noah A Smith. Probing across time: What does roberta know and when? arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.07885, 2021. · arXiv
  29. Max M Louwerse and Nick Benesh. Representing spatial structure through maps and language: Lord of the rings encodes the spatial structure of middle earth. Cognitive science, 36(8):1556- 1569, 2012.
  30. Max M Louwerse and Rolf A Zwaan. Language encodes geographical information. Cognitive Science, 33(1):51-73, 2009.
  31. Kevin Meng, David Bau, Alex Andonian, and Yonatan Belinkov. Locating and editing factual asso- ciations in gpt. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:17359-17372, 2022a.
  32. Kevin Meng, Arnab Sen Sharma, Alex Andonian, Yonatan Belinkov, and David Bau. Mass-editing memory in a transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.07229, 2022b. · arXiv
  33. Eric J Michaud, Ziming Liu, Uzay Girit, and Max Tegmark. The quantization model of neural scaling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13506, 2023. · arXiv
  34. Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S Corrado, and Jeff Dean. Distributed representa- tions of words and phrases and their compositionality. Advances in neural information processing systems, 26, 2013a.
  35. Tomáš Mikolov, Wen-tau Yih, and Geoffrey Zweig. Linguistic regularities in continuous space word representations. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference of the north american chapter of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies, pp. 746-751, 2013b.
  36. Neel Nanda, Andrew Lee, and Martin Wattenberg. Emergent linear representations in world models of self-supervised sequence models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.00941, 2023. · arXiv
  37. Chris Olah, Nick Cammarata, Ludwig Schubert, Gabriel Goh, Michael Petrov, and Shan Carter. Zoom in: An introduction to circuits. Distill, 5(3):e00024-001, 2020.
  38. Roma Patel and Ellie Pavlick. Mapping language models to grounded conceptual spaces. In Inter- national Conference on Learning Representations, 2021.
  39. Tilman Räuker, Anson Ho, Stephen Casper, and Dylan Hadfield-Menell. Toward transparent ai: A survey on interpreting the inner structures of deep neural networks. In 2023 IEEE Conference on Secure and Trustworthy Machine Learning (SaTML), pp. 464-483. IEEE, 2023.
  40. Abhilasha Ravichander, Yonatan Belinkov, and Eduard Hovy. Probing the probing paradigm: Does probing accuracy entail task relevance? arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.00719, 2020. · arXiv
  41. Anna Rogers, Olga Kovaleva, and Anna Rumshisky. A primer in bertology: What we know about how bert works. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:842-866, 2021.
  42. Daniel R Schonhaut, Zahra M Aghajan, Michael J Kahana, and Itzhak Fried. A neural code for time and space in the human brain. Cell Reports, 42(11), 2023.
  43. Shubham Toshniwal, Sam Wiseman, Karen Livescu, and Kevin Gimpel. Chess as a testbed for language model state tracking. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pp. 11385-11393, 2022.
  44. Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Niko- lay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al. Llama 2: Open founda- tion and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gurnee, W., & Tegmark, M.
Affiliations
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2310.02207
arXiv
2310.02207
OpenAlex
W4387356388
Cited by
46
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 6
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
Open Philanthropy Project
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
large language models, spatio-temporal representation, learned representations, Llama 2, world models, grounding

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review