mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Semantic Field Theory: Historical Origin, Higher-Order Interaction, and Stabilized Semantic Inference

arXiv 2607.20451 ↗First posted 14 May 2026cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Semantic Field Theory (SFT) has developed from a philosophical critique of strong anti-formalist readings of language games into a proposed computational model class for lexical semantics, higher order composition, and stabilized interpretation. This paper reconstructs that evolution and gives SFT a sharper mathematical core suitable for independent evaluation in computational linguistics and representation learning. The central proposal is that a tractable level of linguistic organization can be modeled through lexical representations expressed as semantic fields, through contextual deformation of those fields, through interaction terms defined over subsets of tokens, and through stabilization governed by semantic energy dynamics. The paper contributes five formal elements. First, it defines a semantic field model as a tuple consisting of a semantic space, a lexical field lifting, a contextual deformation map, an interaction complex, and an interpretation functional. Second, it proves a Gaussian product closure result showing that multiplicative field interactions have explicit centers, precisions, and compatibility factors. Third, it generalizes the three-word problem by using Mobius inversion on the subset lattice to isolate irreducible semantic interactions of arbitrary order. Fourth, it introduces an order spectrum that measures how much field mass is explained at each interaction order. Fifth, it formulates stabilized interpretation as minimization of an energy functional associated with the sentence and gives existence, descent, and stability conditions. A small worked example shows how a three-word summer day triple can be represented by Gaussian semantic fields, implemented in Python, and summarized by a flow diagram. The result is not a completed theory of natural language meaning and does not replace social, pragmatic, or normative accounts of language.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 May 2026.

Builds on

16 of 37 references.

References · 16

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  3. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  4. 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,411
  5. 2018GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understandingcited by 4,854
  6. 2021On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Modelscited by 3,961
  7. 2017A Broad-Coverage Challenge Corpus for Sentence Understanding through Inferencecited by 2,665
  8. 2018Deep contextualized word representationscited by 2,285
  9. 2015A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inferencecited by 1,837
  10. 2019SuperGLUE: A Stickier Benchmark for General-Purpose Language Understanding Systemscited by 1,718
  11. 2019BERT Rediscovers the Classical NLP Pipelinecited by 1,046
  12. 2019What Does BERT Look At? An Analysis of BERT's Attentioncited by 994
4 more
  1. 2019Attention is not Explanationcited by 916
  2. 2020A Primer in BERTology: What we know about how BERT workscited by 807
  3. 2019How Contextual are Contextualized Word Representations? Comparing the Geometry of BERT, ELMo, and GPT-2 Embeddingscited by 770
  4. 2026Language as Mathematical Structure: Examining Semantic Field Theory Against Language Gamescited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.