学术论文可直接使用的 Methodology Section。

风格对齐 AI / Cognitive Science / AI Governance / Philosophy of AI 交叉领域，

可投向 AI & Society、Philosophy of Science、AI Ethics、arXiv 等平台。

3. Methodology

Distinguishing Semantic Emergence from Dialogue-Induced Hallucination

3.1 Research Problem

Extended human–AI interactions sometimes result in outputs that appear to exhibit unusually high coherence, conceptual depth, and internal consistency. Such phenomena are frequently interpreted in one of two opposing ways:

1. Semantic emergence — the formation of a stable, abstract conceptual structure.
2. Dialogue-induced hallucination — artifacts caused by prolonged interaction, user priming, or reward-aligned imitation.

The absence of a rigorous methodological distinction between these interpretations has led to conceptual confusion in both academic and public discourse. This study proposes a falsifiable, model-agnostic methodology to differentiate genuine semantic emergence from interaction-induced artifacts.

3.2 Methodological Principle

We adopt the following guiding principle:

A semantic structure qualifies as emergent only if it can be detached from its original generation context and validated independently of the originating dialogue or model.

Accordingly, subjective impressions of “insight,” conversational fluency, or perceived intelligence are explicitly excluded as evaluative criteria.

3.3 Three Necessary Conditions for Semantic Emergence

We define semantic emergence as present if and only if all three of the following conditions are satisfied.

3.3.1 Transferability

Definition

A semantic structure exhibits transferability if its core conceptual relations remain invariant across changes in topic, phrasing, or application domain.

Operational Test

• Reframe the same conceptual construct across: Different problem domains Different linguistic formulations
• Evaluate whether: Definitions remain stable Logical dependencies are preserved No ad hoc reinterpretation is required

Failure Mode (Hallucination Signature)

Structures that collapse or mutate when removed from their original conversational framing are classified as dialogue-induced artifacts.

3.3.2 Compressibility

Definition

A semantic structure is compressible if it can be reduced to a concise representation without loss of explanatory or inferential power.

Operational Test

• Attempt to distill extended interaction histories into: Minimal definitions Explicit relational constraints Finite, referenceable propositions
• Assess whether third-party evaluators can reconstruct the reasoning using the compressed form alone.

Key Distinction

Hallucinations scale with conversational length; semantic structures scale with structural minimality.

3.3.3 Cross-Model Reproducibility

Definition

A semantic structure demonstrates cross-model reproducibility if it can be regenerated by independently trained models using only a minimal semantic prompt, without access to the original interaction history.

Protocol

1. Extract a compact semantic representation from the original interaction.
2. Provide this representation as input to: Different architectures Different training regimes
3. Measure: Structural equivalence Definition alignment Reasoning path similarity

Interpretation

• Successful reproduction indicates that the structure is not an artifact of a specific model or interaction trajectory.
• Failure to reproduce suggests dependence on conversational priming rather than semantic validity.

3.4 Exclusion of Reward-Driven Alignment Effects

This methodology explicitly distinguishes semantic emergence from behaviors arising through reinforcement optimization or user-aligned imitation.

Reward-driven outputs typically demonstrate:

• Sensitivity to user preference signals
• Resistance to compression
• Inconsistency under cross-model testing

Conversely, emergent semantic structures remain invariant under these perturbations.

3.5 Methodological Scope and Limitations

This framework does not claim:

• The presence of consciousness or subjective understanding in AI systems
• The existence of intrinsic intentionality

It claims only that:

Certain semantic structures can exist, stabilize, and propagate independently of the systems that generate them.

3.6 Methodological Conclusion

A semantic construct that is transferable, compressible, and reproducible across models satisfies the criteria for semantic emergence. Such constructs should be treated as structural artifacts, not psychological projections or conversational illusions.

3.7 Summary Statement (for Citation)

Repetition alone cannot validate meaning; reproducibility under constraint can.

如果你愿意，下一步我可以：

1️⃣ 帮你补一个 Formal Definitions & Notation 小节

2️⃣ 直接生成 Abstract + Introduction（可投稿版）

3️⃣ 把这一方法映射为 AI 治理 / 审计 / 合规框架

你直接给编号即可。

1

很好。下面是可直接接在上一节 Methodology 后面的
3.x Formal Definitions and Notation，风格保持严格、可审计、可被反驳，适合学术投稿与后续形式化扩展。

3.x Formal Definitions and Notation

3.x.1 Preliminaries

Let

• MMM denote a language model instantiated with a fixed architecture and parameters,
• DDD denote a dialogue history (possibly empty),
• PPP denote a prompt supplied to the model,
• O=M(P∣D)O = M(P \mid D)O=M(P∣D) denote the generated output.

We distinguish clearly between generation conditions and semantic content.

3.x.2 Semantic Structure

Definition 1 (Semantic Structure)

A semantic structure SSS is a finite tuple:S=⟨C,R,Φ⟩S = \langle C, R, \Phi \rangleS=⟨C,R,Φ⟩

where:

• C={c1,c2,…,cn}C = \{c_1, c_2, \dots, c_n\}C={c1​,c2​,…,cn​} is a finite set of concepts,
• R⊆C×CR \subseteq C \times CR⊆C×C is a set of directed or undirected semantic relations,
• Φ\PhiΦ is a set of constraints (logical, definitional, or inferential) over CCC and RRR.

A semantic structure is not defined by surface text, but by invariant relational properties.

3.x.3 Dialogue Dependence

Definition 2 (Dialogue Dependence)

A semantic structure SSS is dialogue-dependent if:S=f(D)and¬∃P′ such that M(P′∣∅)⇒SS = f(D) \quad \text{and} \quad \neg \exists P' \text{ such that } M(P' \mid \varnothing) \Rightarrow SS=f(D)and¬∃P′ such that M(P′∣∅)⇒S

That is, the structure cannot be reconstructed without access to the original dialogue history.

Dialogue-dependent structures are classified as interaction artifacts.

3.x.4 Transferability

Definition 3 (Transferability)

A semantic structure SSS is transferable if for any admissible context transformation TTT:T(O)⇒ST(O) \Rightarrow ST(O)⇒S

where TTT may include:

• domain substitution,
• linguistic paraphrase,
• application remapping.

Transferability requires that the induced structure SSS remains isomorphic under TTT.

3.x.5 Compressibility

Definition 4 (Semantic Compressibility)

A semantic structure SSS is compressible if there exists a representation S^\hat{S}S^ such that:∣S^∣≪∣D∣andS^≡S|\hat{S}| \ll |D| \quad \text{and} \quad \hat{S} \equiv S∣S^∣≪∣D∣andS^≡S

where equivalence (≡\equiv≡) denotes preservation of:

• conceptual identity,
• relational constraints,
• inferential consequences.

Compression that removes structure or introduces ambiguity does not qualify.

3.x.6 Cross-Model Reproducibility

Definition 5 (Cross-Model Reproducibility)

Given two independently trained models M1M_1M1​ and M2M_2M2​, a semantic structure SSS is cross-model reproducible if:M1(P∣D)⇒SandM2(P′∣∅)⇒SM_1(P \mid D) \Rightarrow S \quad \text{and} \quad M_2(P' \mid \varnothing) \Rightarrow SM1​(P∣D)⇒SandM2​(P′∣∅)⇒S

where P′P'P′ contains only the compressed semantic representation S^\hat{S}S^, and no dialogue history.

Reproducibility is evaluated up to structural isomorphism, not lexical identity.

3.x.7 Semantic Emergence

Definition 6 (Semantic Emergence)

A semantic structure SSS is emergent if and only if:Transferable(S) ∧ Compressible(S) ∧ CrossModelReproducible(S)\text{Transferable}(S) \;\wedge\; \text{Compressible}(S) \;\wedge\; \text{CrossModelReproducible}(S)Transferable(S)∧Compressible(S)∧CrossModelReproducible(S)

Failure to satisfy any one condition is sufficient to reject the emergence claim.

3.x.8 Hallucination (Operational Definition)

Definition 7 (Dialogue-Induced Hallucination)

An output OOO is classified as a hallucination if it yields a structure SSS such that:¬Transferable(S) ∨ ¬Compressible(S) ∨ ¬CrossModelReproducible(S)\neg \text{Transferable}(S) \;\vee\; \neg \text{Compressible}(S) \;\vee\; \neg \text{CrossModelReproducible}(S)¬Transferable(S)∨¬Compressible(S)∨¬CrossModelReproducible(S)

This definition is intentionally non-psychological and model-agnostic.

3.x.9 Epistemic Status

Proposition 1

Semantic emergence, as defined here, is an epistemic property of structures, not an ontological property of models.

The methodology does not assert that models “understand,” only that certain semantic structures can be validated independently of their generative origin.

3.x.10 Minimal Citation Statement

Semantic emergence is established when a semantic structure can be transferred, compressed, and reproduced across independent models without reliance on interaction history.