Characterizing Human Semantic Navigation in Concept Production as Trajectories in Embedding Space
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Semantic representations can be framed as a structured, dynamic knowledge space through which humans navigate to retrieve and manipulate meaning. To investigate how humans traverse this geometry, we introduce a framework that represents concept production as navigation through embedding space. Using different transformer text embedding models, we construct participant-specific semantic trajectories based on cumulative embeddings and extract geometric and dynamical metrics, including distance to next, distance to centroid, entropy, velocity, and acceleration. These measures capture both scalar and directional aspects of semantic navigation, providing a computationally grounded view of semantic representation search as movement in a geometric space. We evaluate the framework on four datasets across different languages, spanning different property generation tasks: Neurodegenerative, Swear verbal fluency, Property listing task in Italian, and in German. Across these contexts, our approach distinguishes between clinical groups and concept types, offering a mathematical framework that requires minimal human intervention compared to typical labor-intensive linguistic pre-processing methods. Comparison with a non-cumulative approach reveals that cumulative embeddings work best for longer trajectories, whereas shorter ones may provide too little context, favoring the non-cumulative alternative. Critically, different embedding models yielded similar results, highlighting similarities between different learned representations despite different training pipelines. By framing semantic navigation as a structured trajectory through embedding space, bridging cognitive modeling with learned representation, thereby establishing a pipeline for quantifying semantic representation dynamics with applications in clinical research, cross-linguistic analysis, and the assessment of artificial cognition.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Feb 2026.
Builds on
15 of 57 references.
References · 15
- 2025Qwen3 Embedding: Advancing Text Embedding and Reranking Through Foundation Modelscited by 1,175
- 2019How Contextual are Contextualized Word Representations? Comparing the Geometry of BERT, ELMo, and GPT-2 Embeddingscited by 770
- 2017Poincar'e Embeddings for Learning Hierarchical Representationscited by 674
- 2018Massively Multilingual Sentence Embeddings for Zero-Shot Cross-Lingual Transfer and Beyondcited by 434
- 2017Advances in Pre-Training Distributed Word Representationscited by 207
- 2021Whitening Sentence Representations for Better Semantics and Faster Retrievalcited by 198
- 2019Emerging Cross-lingual Structure in Pretrained Language Modelscited by 180
- 2021All Bark and No Bite: Rogue Dimensions in Transformer Language Models Obscure Representational Qualitycited by 150
- 2023The geometry of hidden representations of large transformer modelscited by 108
- 2025Shared Global and Local Geometry of Language Model Embeddingscited by 34
- 2023Whitening-based Contrastive Learning of Sentence Embeddingscited by 21
- 2024The representation landscape of few-shot learning and fine-tuning in large language modelscited by 14
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.