Toward Interpretative Language Model: a CAS Framework with Six Interaction Variables to Capture Implicit Meaning

Towards Interpretative Language Models: A Complex Adaptive System Framework with Six Interaction Variables to Capture Implicit, Intrinsic, and Artistic Meaning

Abstrak 

We propose a novel theoretical framework---CAS-6 (Complex Adaptive System with Six Variables)---designed to enhance Large Language Models (LLMs) by enabling them to capture not only probabilistic and denotative meanings, but also implicit, intrinsic, and artistic dimensions of language. The framework introduces six variables: interaction level, interaction pattern, interaction probability, interaction weight, interaction stability, and interaction output. We demonstrate the framework using triadic word sets such as "air", "mata", and "buaya", showing how permutations across interaction levels generate diverse semantic outputs---from literal to metaphorical. Unlike current LLMs that rely predominantly on statistical co-occurrence, CAS-6 models meaning as an emergent property of multi-layered semantic interplay. This work lays the groundwork for a new generation of interpretative, culturally-sensitive, and creatively adaptive AI language systems.

1. Introduction

1.1. Limitations of Probabilistic Approaches in Contemporary Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT, PaLM, and LLaMA have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in generating coherent and contextually appropriate natural language texts. These models are primarily driven by probabilistic mechanisms---namely, the estimation of the most likely next token in a sequence based on massive corpora of linguistic data. While this architecture excels at capturing syntactic regularities and frequent co-occurrences, it remains limited in its ability to understand or generate nuanced language that conveys implicit, connotative, or artistic meaning.

This limitation is not merely aesthetic; it reflects a deeper issue in the representation of meaning itself. Language is not reducible to statistical regularities alone. Poetic constructs, idiomatic expressions, irony, metaphor, cultural subtext, and emotional resonance often operate through rare or unexpected combinations of words---precisely those which fall outside the bounds of high-probability patterns. For instance, while the phrase "crocodile tears" is a well-known idiom denoting false sympathy, its interpretation cannot be inferred solely from the individual meanings of "crocodile" and "tears", nor from the frequency with which these terms co-occur.

In other words, the dominant statistical paradigm in current LLMs lacks an inherent mechanism to capture inter-word dynamics that generate emergent meaning beyond local token prediction. As a consequence, such models often default to superficial fluency without genuine semantic depth or creativity, especially when tasked with interpreting figurative, emotional, or symbolic language.

This paper proposes an alternative framework---CAS-6V (Complex Adaptive System with 6 Variables)---designed to model multi-word meaning as an emergent property of structured interaction between linguistic elements. By introducing six interconnected variables (Interaction Level, Interaction Pattern, Interaction Probability, Interaction Weight, Interaction Stability, and Interaction Output), the CAS-6V framework aims to capture not only the probabilistic relationships among words but also their potential to form nonlinear, context-sensitive, and aesthetically meaningful structures. Our approach treats language understanding as a dynamic and adaptive system, not merely a sequential optimization problem.

1.2. The Importance of Implicit Meaning, Cultural Nuance, and Aesthetic Dimensions in Language Understanding

Natural language is not merely a medium for information transmission; it is a complex, culturally-situated system for encoding thought, emotion, identity, and aesthetic experience. In human communication, a significant proportion of meaning is conveyed not through explicit statements, but through implicature, connotation, metaphor, symbolism, and cultural reference. These phenomena are not noise or ornament---they are central to how language functions as a tool for nuanced human cognition and intersubjectivity.

Understanding such implicit content is essential for a range of advanced AI applications, including affective computing, cross-cultural dialogue systems, literary analysis, and context-sensitive language generation. For example, the phrase "crocodile tears" does not refer to reptiles or moisture per se; it encodes a socially constructed concept of insincere emotion, with deep roots in historical metaphor and moral judgment. Similarly, the ordering of words---"eyes of the crocodile" vs. "crocodile eyes"---can shift the perceived agency, mood, or symbolic weight of a sentence in ways that go far beyond syntactic parsing or statistical prediction.

Yet current LLMs, driven by token-level prediction, tend to conflate surface-level coherence with semantic insight. While they may reproduce idioms from training data, they often fail to adapt or generate novel figurative constructs that retain conceptual integrity or cultural relevance. Moreover, these models are largely agnostic to aesthetic quality---that is, the emotional resonance, balance, rhythm, or symbolic layering that typify creative human expression.

This shortfall is particularly evident in multilingual or multicultural settings, where subtle variations in tone, metaphor, or referential frame can lead to misinterpretation if the model lacks access to latent cultural schemata or implicit cognitive mappings. In creative or high-context domains---such as poetry, satire, or spiritual discourse---the absence of a deeper semantic model renders current LLM outputs often flat or inauthentic.

To address these limitations, we argue for a paradigm shift: from treating language understanding as a purely probabilistic sequence task to conceiving it as a multi-variable interaction system, where meaning arises not solely from frequency, but from structured, context-aware interaction among linguistic units. The CAS-6V framework is intended to enable such a shift, by modeling language not just as data, but as an adaptive, emergent, and meaning-bearing system.

1.3. The CAS-6V Framework: Toward Interpretative Depth in Language Models

To address the interpretive limitations of conventional probabilistic language models, we propose CAS-6V---a Complex Adaptive System with Six Variables---as a novel conceptual and computational framework for enhancing AI's capacity to capture implicit, nuanced, and aesthetic dimensions of language. Drawing from the fields of complex systems theory, semantics, cognitive linguistics, and creative language processing, CAS-6V treats linguistic meaning as the emergent result of multi-variable interactions among language elements.

At its core, the CAS-6V framework introduces six interdependent variables:

1. Interaction Level: the number of lexical nodes interacting (e.g., unigrams, bigrams, trigrams), reflecting the depth of semantic combination.
2. Interaction Pattern: the structure and sequence of word interactions (e.g., permutations or syntactic roles), accounting for the significance of word order and relational dynamics.
3. Interaction Probability: the statistical likelihood of co-occurrence or sequence, as inherited from traditional LLMs.
4. Interaction Weight: the degree to which specific word pairs or groupings support or inhibit meaning-making (ranging from inhibitory to catalytic).
5. Interaction Stability: a measure of how robust the constructed meaning is across contexts and transformations (e.g., metaphorical vs. literal stability).
6. Interaction Output: the qualitative emergence of meaning---whether denotative, connotative, symbolic, emotive, or aesthetic.
Unlike conventional LLMs which prioritize probability as the dominant variable, CAS-6V positions probability as only one axis within a richer multidimensional space of semantic generation. This allows for modeling meaning as nonlinear, context-sensitive, and artistically resonant, mirroring how human cognition interprets and generates language beyond surface statistics.

For instance, in exploring the phrase "crocodile tears," CAS-6V recognizes that the low statistical co-occurrence between "crocodile" and "tears" is not a barrier to interpretive richness. Instead, through weighted patterns of cultural symbolism and affective valence, this phrase activates a stable and culturally-embedded meaning that far exceeds its component parts. CAS-6V models such phenomena not as anomalies, but as essential aspects of human language use.

In this framework, AI systems are guided not merely by predictive likelihood, but by semantic plausibility, cultural coherence, and expressive potential. This reorientation enables the generation and interpretation of language that is not only accurate, but also meaningful in the deeper, humanistic sense of the word.

By positioning language as an emergent property of adaptive systems rather than a linear sequence of tokens, CAS-6V opens the door to a new class of interpretable, culturally aware, and artistically sensitive AI systems. This paper outlines the theoretical basis, initial implementation schema, and illustrative applications of CAS-6V, laying the foundation for a new frontier in natural language understanding.

2. Related Work

2.1. Limitations of LLMs (e.g., GPT, BERT) in Interpreting Complex Meaning

Large Language Models (LLMs), such as GPT (Brown et al., 2020; OpenAI, 2023) and BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in a wide range of natural language processing (NLP) tasks, from machine translation and summarization to question answering and dialogue generation. These systems achieve impressive fluency and coherence by leveraging large-scale transformer architectures and training on massive corpora to predict word sequences based on contextual embeddings.

Despite these achievements, there are increasing concerns regarding the depth and authenticity of the understanding that these models exhibit. Fundamentally, both autoregressive models (like GPT) and masked language models (like BERT) operate on statistical inference principles---namely, predicting the most probable next token or masked token given a context. This probabilistic mechanism, while effective in producing plausible surface-level outputs, often fails to capture latent, symbolic, emotional, or culturally nuanced meaning that is essential to human communication.

Several key limitations are widely documented:

1. Surface Semantics Bias
LLMs excel at syntactic pattern recognition but frequently conflate statistical proximity with semantic depth. For example, phrases such as "crocodile tears" or "burning silence" carry metaphorical and cultural significance that cannot be derived solely from frequency-based token associations.
2. Inadequate Contextual Memory
While transformer-based models are designed to attend to prior context, they often exhibit limited ability to model discourse-level coherence or long-range semantic dependencies, especially when meaning emerges across multiple utterances or relies on shared background knowledge.
3. Lack of Interpretability and Conceptual Grounding
LLMs operate as black-box statistical machines, lacking explicit symbolic reasoning or semantic representations. Consequently, they fail to reason about underlying concepts, analogies, or symbolic relations that go beyond surface tokens.
4. Cultural and Aesthetic Blind Spots
 LLMs trained on broad web corpora often internalize dominant language patterns, but lack sensitivity to non-dominant cultural metaphors, regional idioms, or linguistic aesthetics (e.g., poetic rhythm, emotional undertones). This limits their utility in creative writing, intercultural dialogue, or artistic co-creation tasks.
5. Figurative Language Challenges
Empirical studies show that LLMs perform poorly on tasks involving metaphor, irony, sarcasm, or allegory (Chakrabarty et al., 2022; Bisk et al., 2020). These forms of expression often rely on multi-layered interpretation, which probabilistic token-level prediction struggles to replicate without structured conceptual modeling.
Several attempts have been made to mitigate these issues, such as incorporating external knowledge graphs (Zhang et al., 2019), grounding in multimodal contexts (e.g., CLIP by Radford et al., 2021), or aligning outputs using reinforcement learning from human feedback (Ouyang et al., 2022). However, these augmentations still operate within the overarching statistical paradigm and are limited in their capacity to model meaning as a dynamic interaction system.

The CAS-6V framework proposed in this paper builds upon these insights but shifts the perspective entirely---from treating meaning as emergent from prediction over static tokens to modeling it as the result of structured, multi-variable, and adaptive interactions between linguistic elements. This distinction is critical for progressing toward AI systems that do not merely simulate language, but genuinely interpret and generate it in a manner aligned with human-level abstraction, affect, and creativity.

2.2. Insights from Cognitive Semantics, Emergent Semantics, Semiotics, and Complex Adaptive Systems

The limitations of probabilistic language modeling in current LLMs have motivated scholars to explore alternative paradigms that draw from cognitive linguistics, philosophy of language, semiotics, and complex systems theory. These interdisciplinary perspectives offer critical insights into how meaning emerges, evolves, and is interpreted beyond surface-level token prediction.

2.2.1 Cognitive Semantics and Conceptual Metaphor Theory

Cognitive semantics, particularly as developed by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (1980), and further expanded by Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner (2002), posits that meaning arises from embodied experience and conceptual mapping, rather than from purely syntactic relations. Core ideas such as image schemas, conceptual blends, and metaphorical projection emphasize that linguistic meaning is deeply tied to human cognition, perception, and culture.

For instance, the phrase "crocodile tears" is not simply a collocation of two frequent tokens; it invokes a culturally entrenched conceptual metaphor for insincerity, rooted in narratives of deceptive behavior. Current LLMs are unable to natively represent or reason over such conceptual blends without extensive fine-tuning or prompt engineering.

Our proposed CAS-6V framework draws inspiration from this tradition by treating words not as atomic tokens but as interactive cognitive agents, whose combinatorial arrangements (e.g., "tears", "eyes", "crocodile") trigger shifts in meaning based on internal semantic dynamics, cultural mappings, and aesthetic tensions.

2.2.2 Emergent Semantics in Multi-Agent Systems

In parallel, research in multi-agent systems (MAS) has explored how semantics can emerge from distributed interactions among autonomous agents (Steels, 2005; Luc Steels & Kaplan, 2002). These systems simulate the co-evolution of communication conventions, showing how meaning can arise dynamically from negotiation, reinforcement, and feedback mechanisms.

Such emergent semantics offer a critical alternative to top-down statistical learning: instead of predefining lexical semantics, agents construct meaning through situated interaction and adaptive coordination. This principle directly informs our framework's treatment of words as dynamic semantic entities interacting across layered levels (e.g., pairwise, triadic), producing nonlinear meaning outputs.

While most MAS studies focus on low-level symbol grounding (e.g., object naming in robots), we extend this idea to semantic emergence at higher abstraction levels---such as metaphor, irony, and cultural idioms---by embedding agent interactions within a complex adaptive system (CAS) formalism.

2.2.3 Semiotics and Interpretive AI

Semiotics, particularly Peircean and structuralist traditions, frames meaning as a triadic relation among sign (representamen), object, and interpretant. Recent work in AI (Chandler, 2007; Kittler, 2010) has begun to explore how symbolic systems can be interpreted algorithmically, moving from statistical encoding to sign-based modeling.

Interpretive AI approaches argue for models that are meaning-aware, i.e., capable of not just generating grammatical output but also discerning contextual relevance, symbolic implication, and aesthetic effect. This aligns with artistic AI, affective computing, and AI-driven literature analysis.

CAS-6V positions itself as a semiotic-inspired system, where permutations of signs (e.g., "eyes", "tears", "crocodile") act as signals whose meaning shifts depending on their interaction topology. This provides a path to interpretative dynamism, in contrast to static token-to-token probability estimates.

2.2.4 Complex Adaptive Systems in AI

Finally, Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) theory---originating from the Santa Fe Institute (Holland, 1992; Mitchell, 2009)---has provided powerful models for nonlinear, self-organizing behavior in decentralized environments. CAS-based approaches in AI have been used to simulate biological processes, swarm intelligence, and socio-cognitive interactions.

In the context of language, CAS offers a promising scaffold to model how semantic coherence, divergence, stability, and novelty emerge from local interactions among linguistic agents. Our proposed CAS-6V model operationalizes six interrelated variables---interaction pattern, level, probability, weight, stability, and output---as a way to quantify and simulate semantic emergence in linguistic structures.

By situating meaning within a CAS formalism, we allow for the modeling of semantic instability (ambiguity, irony), phase transitions (metaphoric leaps), and attractors (conventionalized meaning), all of which are poorly captured in conventional LLMs.

2.3. The Gap: Absence of a Systemic Framework Linking Complex Word Interactions to Semantic Understanding in AI

Despite the significant progress in natural language processing (NLP), most state-of-the-art language models remain constrained by token-level statistical learning, optimized primarily for next-word prediction and syntactic coherence. While these models exhibit impressive fluency and context retention, they often fall short in understanding deep semantic relationships, cultural nuance, implicit meanings, and aesthetic dimensions of language.

As highlighted in previous subsections, various fields---from cognitive semantics and semiotics to complex systems and multi-agent theory---have proposed rich, conceptual mechanisms for meaning construction. However, there remains a fundamental methodological and architectural gap: the absence of a computational framework that systematically models the emergence of meaning through multi-level, dynamic word interactions.

Existing LLMs like GPT and BERT treat words and phrases as vectors in high-dimensional embedding spaces. Though these embeddings capture distributional similarity, they do not inherently model:

Hierarchical or recursive semantic emergence, especially in small but meaningful permutations (e.g., "crocodile tears" vs. "tears of crocodile").
Inter-word interaction dynamics that generate context-sensitive and culturally encoded meanings.
The role of semantic stability and phase transitions, as seen in metaphor, irony, or aesthetic interpretation.
Systemic modeling of word clusters as adaptive agents whose meanings shift through internal interaction patterns, akin to complex adaptive systems in biological or social phenomena.
More specifically, no current framework integrates the six core components essential for capturing semantic emergence:

1. Interaction Patterns: Structural configuration of word combinations.
2. Interaction Levels: Degree of complexity (unary, binary, ternary, etc.).
3. Interaction Probability: Likelihood of a particular configuration occurring in natural language or being selected by context.
4. Interaction Weight: Semantic strength or contribution of each element.
5. Interaction Stability: The consistency or volatility of meaning across contexts or cultural domains.
6. Interaction Output: The emergent, often non-linear meaning resulting from the interaction of linguistic elements.
This six-variable model---CAS-6V---has not yet been formalized or implemented in any major LLM or AI architecture. Moreover, the lack of a unified computational framework prevents current models from achieving interpretative richness and cognitive fidelity akin to human understanding of metaphor, irony, or culturally bound idioms.

Therefore, we identify a clear theoretical and technological gap in the literature: a need for a systemic, adaptive, and semantically expressive framework capable of representing the emergence of meaning as a product of multi-level, weighted, and unstable interactions among linguistic units.

In response, the next section presents CAS-6V: a novel framework inspired by complex adaptive systems theory, designed to extend current LLM capabilities toward a more interpretive, culturally sensitive, and artistically aware AI language understanding.

3. The CAS-6V Framework: Conceptual Model and Components

3.1 Overview

The CAS-6V Framework (Complex Adaptive System with 6 Variables) introduces a novel theoretical and computational lens for advancing AI's capacity to understand emergent, nuanced, and culturally embedded meaning in natural language. Departing from purely probabilistic models, CAS-6V draws from the principles of complex systems, semantic emergence, and adaptive agent interaction to offer a structured way of modeling how meaning is co-constructed through multi-variable word interactions.

The framework defines six interdependent variables that govern how individual linguistic units (e.g., words, phrases) interact, form higher-order structures, and produce emergent semantic interpretations. These variables are:

1. Interaction Level (L)

Definition: The number of linguistic elements (tokens or conceptual units) involved in an interaction.
Values:

Level 1: Single-token interaction (isolated lexical meaning)
Level 2: Binary interaction (pairwise construction, e.g., "crocodile tears")
Level n: Multi-token, compositional interactions (e.g., "tears in the eyes of a crocodile")
Purpose:
To formalize the granularity at which semantic emergence begins to manifest. As interaction levels increase, potential for metaphor, ambiguity, and aesthetic construction also increases.

2. Interaction Pattern (P)

Definition: The structural configuration or topological arrangement of the interacting elements.
Sub-dimensions:

Order: Sequential arrangement (e.g., "tears of crocodile" "crocodile of tears")
Directionality: Causal or thematic flow (subject object, modifier core, etc.)
Topology: Tree-like vs. cyclic vs. networked constructions, including dependencies in parse trees and semantic graphs.
Purpose:
To capture the importance of syntax and structural form in shaping meaning. Certain configurations yield metaphor, irony, or idiomatic expressions, while others preserve literal interpretations.

3. Interaction Probability (Pr)

Definition: The likelihood that a given interaction pattern will occur in natural language, or that it will be predicted or accepted by an LLM given a context.
Sources:

Corpus statistics (frequency counts)
LLM softmax prediction distributions
Cross-linguistic and cultural priors (e.g., how common an idiom is across languages)
Purpose:
To retain a grounded metric of statistical plausibility, while acknowledging that some meaningful expressions (e.g., poetry or irony) may have low occurrence probability yet high interpretive value.

4. Interaction Weight (W)

Definition: The semantic valence or strength of the contribution made by each element in the interaction, quantified within a bounded scale.
Range:

-2: Strongly inhibitive (disrupts or negates meaning)
-1: Weakly inhibitive
0: Neutral or redundant
+1: Supportive
+2: Strongly synergistic (amplifies or catalyzes emergent meaning)
Purpose:
To enable qualitative weighting of linguistic elements in shaping final meaning. For instance, in "crocodile tears", the word "crocodile" may carry strong metaphorical weight (+2), while "tears" carries literal grounding (+1).

5. Interaction Stability (S)

Definition: A measure of how stable or volatile the resulting semantic construct is across contexts, time, and audiences.
Metrics:

Semantic resonance: Cross-context coherence of interpretation
Cultural stability: Whether an expression holds meaning across groups
Temporal persistence: Stability over time (e.g., idioms that persist across generations)
Purpose:
To reflect the fragility or robustness of meaning under different linguistic and cognitive conditions. Metaphors may be highly unstable (S ), while technical definitions tend to be stable (S ).

6. Interaction Output (O)

Definition: The emergent semantic interpretation of the interaction, which may include literal, metaphoric, ironic, or aesthetic meaning.
Categories:

Literal: Surface-level denotative meaning
Metaphoric: Figurative, transpositional meaning
Aesthetic: Evokes emotion, style, or poetic quality
Irony / Sarcasm: Meaning emerges through contradiction or negation
Nonsense / Ambiguous: Output is unstable or interpretable in multiple ways
Purpose:
To classify and predict the semantic function of a word cluster based on interaction variables. Output becomes the "final layer" of meaning, and can feed back into further interpretation loops.

Together, these six variables form a multi-dimensional interaction space, allowing language models to process language not merely as sequence and probability, but as dynamic semantic fields governed by structured, adaptive, and often non-linear rules. This framework offers the potential to bridge the gap between current LLM capabilities and human-like semantic interpretation.

The next section presents how this theoretical model can be formally represented, integrated into existing LLM pipelines, and evaluated empirically.

3.2 Interaction Level: From Atom to Emergent Semantics

In natural language understanding, the number of linguistic elements involved in a semantic construction---termed here as the Interaction Level (L)---has a significant impact on the type and depth of meaning that emerges. The CAS-6V framework posits that increasing the interaction level introduces higher complexity, richer cultural embedding, and greater interpretive flexibility.

We categorize interaction levels as follows:

A. Level 1 --- Single Word Interaction: Denotative Meaning

At Interaction Level 1, language units are processed in isolation. The resulting semantic output is typically denotative, relying on dictionary definitions or context-independent embeddings.

Example:

Tears "a drop of saline fluid from the eye"
Crocodile "a large reptile"
Eyes "organs of sight"
These interpretations are computationally straightforward and commonly used in tasks such as named entity recognition, part-of-speech tagging, and lexical classification. However, they lack the nuance required for contextual or figurative understanding.

Limitation:
LLMs operating at Level 1 cannot capture idiomatic, metaphorical, or aesthetic functions of language. They are confined to the lexical surface.

B. Level 2 --- Binary Word Interaction: Idiomatic and Connotative Meaning

At Interaction Level 2, meaning emerges from pairwise interactions between tokens. This level is critical for generating idiomatic expressions, cultural connotations, and semantic shifts.

Examples:

Crocodile tears a figurative expression denoting fake or insincere emotion
Tearful eyes a descriptive phrase with emotional valence
Eye of the crocodile a phrase that can imply vigilance, danger, or a poetic metaphor
Here, sequence and adjacency begin to matter. The same two words (crocodile and tears) can yield different meanings when reordered (tears of a crocodile vs. crocodile's tears), due to syntactic directionality and cultural associations.

Emergent Properties:

Connotation: subtle shades of meaning (e.g., sorrow, deception)
Idiom formation: fixed or semi-fixed expressions
Emotional charge: expressions now carry affective content
Implication for AI:
LLMs need mechanisms beyond token probability to interpret Level 2 interactions. Current embedding models often struggle with polysemy, sarcasm, and cultural idioms unless they are highly represented in training data.

C. Level 3 --- Three-word Interaction: Artistic, Symbolic, and Semiotic Emergence

At Interaction Level 3, we observe the onset of semiotic systems, aesthetic constructs, and high-level symbolic meaning. These triadic interactions exhibit non-linearity in semantic construction---the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

Examples:

Crocodile tears eyes: ambiguous, poetic, possibly surreal
Eyes of crocodile tears: evokes emotion through complex metaphoric layering
Crocodile's tearful eyes: could represent anthropomorphization, irony, or satire
Interpretive Dimensions:

Metaphoric chaining: meaning is transferred across elements (e.g., tears insincerity predator)
Semiotic layering: multiple cultural and emotional signals coexist
Aesthetic emergence: structure and sound (e.g., rhythm or irony) contribute to perceived beauty or impact
Relevance to AI:
Traditional LLMs like GPT or BERT tend to flatten such expressions into surface-level approximations or disregard low-frequency phrases as statistical noise. Yet, for human-level language understanding, these constructs are central in poetry, literature, memes, and political discourse.

Summary Table: Interaction Levels

Recognizing and leveraging these levels allows AI models to traverse beyond syntax and probability, entering realms where emotion, irony, symbolism, and beauty reside---a capability critical for advanced human-AI linguistic interaction.

3.3 Visual Representation and Lightweight Mathematics

To operationalize the CAS-6 framework in machine learning systems, we propose lightweight yet expressive formalizations of word interaction patterns using graph theory and tensor representations. These mathematical abstractions serve as scaffolds for visualizing, modeling, and computing interaction-driven semantics, particularly beyond the capabilities of standard token-sequence models.

A. Interaction Patterns as Graph Structures

We model each interaction as a directed labeled graph, in which:

Nodes (V) represent individual lexical units (e.g., tears, eyes, crocodile).
Edges (E) represent semantic or syntactic interactions between these units.
Edge attributes encode:
Directionality (who influences whom),
Weight (synergistic vs. inhibitive interaction),
Stability (temporal or contextual resonance),
Interaction probability (contextual co-occurrence score).
Example: Triadic Interaction Graph

Given the phrase "crocodile tears eyes", we can construct:

V = {v: tears, v: eyes, v: crocodile}
E = { (v v), (v v), (v v) }
Each edge can have associated metadata:

Weight [2, +2]
Stability [0, 1]
Probability [0, 1]
Figure 1 (hypothetical):

     [crocodile]

             

       [tears][eyes]

This directed acyclic graph (DAG) formulation allows for:

Path analysis to trace semantic flow
Subgraph matching for idiom detection
Dynamic topology updates in dialog-based LLMs
B. Systemic Notation Using Lightweight Tensors

To generalize computational implementation, we define a simple Interaction Tensor I capturing:

i, j: Indexes of word pairs
k: Dimension representing interaction attributes
Let:

I = weight (w [2, +2])
I = stability (s [0, 1])
I = probability (p [0, 1])
Thus, for a phrase of 3 words, the interaction tensor would have shape [3, 3, 3], where the diagonal can be reserved for self-reflection metrics (i.e., lexical salience).

Example Tensor (Simplified):

For tokens: [0]: tears, [1]: eyes, [2]: crocodile

This tensor can serve as input to a differentiable module within LLM pipelines that modulates prediction paths or attention weights based on semantic resonance, not just token frequency.

Advantages of This Mathematical Formalism

Interpretability: Graph edges and tensor elements are human-readable, supporting explainable AI.
Computational Tractability: Sparse tensors and shallow graphs enable efficient integration with current LLMs.
Extensibility: This structure scales to higher interaction levels (n > 3) and can be fused with self-attention mechanisms in transformer architectures.
By embedding interaction structure into formal representations, CAS-6 enables models to navigate meaning space as a dynamic, context-sensitive topology---bringing them closer to the cognitive adaptability of human semantics.

3.4 Interaction Probability: Beyond Frequency---Contextual Resonance and Predictive Entanglement

In traditional large language models (LLMs), probability is derived primarily from statistical co-occurrence and token-level prediction. While effective for surface-level generation, this probabilistic grounding is insufficient to model the nuanced, emergent semantics arising from multi-word interactions, particularly those involving cultural, artistic, or idiomatic content. The CAS-6 framework proposes a richer interpretation of interaction probability---one that incorporates contextual resonance and predictive entanglement.

A. Limitations of Token-Level Frequency Models

Most transformer-based architectures (e.g., BERT, GPT) rely on masked language modeling or autoregressive decoding, where the likelihood of a word is estimated based on linear or partially bidirectional context windows. This formulation:

Assumes independence or limited-order Markov dependencies.
Fails to account for nonlinear entanglement of meaning across permutations (e.g., "crocodile tears" "tears crocodile").
Overrepresents literal frequency while underrepresenting conceptual salience or artistic resonance.
B. Redefining Probability in CAS-6: Three Axes

We redefine interaction probability as a multidimensional construct, composed of the following interacting factors:

1. Statistical Frequency (f)
Conventional co-occurrence in corpora.
Still useful, but considered only one axis of semantic relevance.
2. Contextual Resonance (r)
A measure of how semantically "stable" or "meaningful" the interaction is across diverse contexts.
For example, the dyad "crocodile tears" maintains its figurative connotation across domains (media, literature, politics), giving it high contextual resonance.
3. Predictive Entanglement (e)
A dynamic measure capturing how strongly the presence of one token (or structure) activates or modulates another's interpretation.
For instance, "eyes" when preceded by "tears" has a different affective and semantic projection than when preceded by "crocodile."
Thus, we define an augmented interaction probability P as:

Pij=fij+rij+eijP = f + r + e

Where:

,,, , are tunable weights depending on application domain.
fijf: normalized co-occurrence frequency
rijr: resonance score, derived from contextual variability tests or semantic stability estimators.
eije: entanglement coefficient, measured via attention heads, mutual information, or transformer gradient analysis.
C. Applications in Model Design and Interpretation

Semantic Disambiguation: High entanglement + low frequency suggests idiomatic or poetic expressions.
Figurative Language Detection: High resonance + asymmetry in directional entanglement can mark metaphors.
Low-Resource Semantics: Enables reasoning over rare but meaning-rich combinations that are underrepresented in training data.
D. Computational Implementation

In practice, we implement interaction probability within the CAS-6 tensor (Section 3.3) as:

Iij(3)=Pij=fij+rij+eijI_{ij}^{(3)} = P = f + r + e

This allows the probability axis to remain differentiable and learnable within an LLM's architecture while preserving multi-factorial semantics.

By decoupling interaction probability from mere frequency and enriching it with semantic resonance and predictive entanglement, the CAS-6 model captures deeper, cognitively aligned patterns in language. This redefinition is pivotal in advancing LLMs toward true interpretive AI, capable of understanding subtle meaning beyond word counts.

3.5 Interaction Weight: Inhibition, Synergy, and Semiotic Tension

While interaction probability (Section 3.4) captures how likely a word pair or triad is to co-occur meaningfully, interaction weight introduces a critical qualitative axis: the valence or directional effect of that interaction on the final semantic construction. Within the CAS-6 framework, we model this as a continuous variable ranging from 2 (strongly inhibitive) to +2 (strongly synergistic), enabling AI models to infer how word interactions construct or destruct potential meaning spaces.

A. Conceptual Foundation: From Syntax to Semiosis

In classical linguistics and cognitive semantics, meaning emerges not merely from presence but from relational force between concepts (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). For instance:

The phrase "stone heart" combines two denotatively unrelated concepts.
Yet their interplay leads to a powerful metaphor of emotional coldness.
In this case, "stone" inhibits the affective openness of "heart"---yielding a highly loaded figurative meaning.
This semiotic tension, marked by a negative interaction weight, is a source of both complexity and aesthetic depth. On the other hand:

"gentle breeze" represents a synergistic pairing, where both components reinforce a shared semantic domain (calmness, nature, softness).
B. Formal Definition of Interaction Weight (w)

Let each directed interaction between word i and word j carry a weight:

wij{2,1,0,+1,+2}w \{-2, -1, 0, +1, +2\}

Where:

+2 = strong synergistic interaction (mutual reinforcement of meaning)
+1 = weak synergy (complementary but not amplifying)
0 = neutral (coexistence without enhancement or conflict)
1 = weak inhibition (partial semantic dissonance)
2 = strong inhibition (metaphoric contradiction, irony, or sarcasm)
The weight is not absolute, but context-dependent, modulated by:

Domain knowledge (e.g., "cold fire" in poetry vs. chemistry)
Cultural framing (e.g., "white lie" may be +1 in Western pragmatics, 1 in truth-centric epistemologies)
Discourse register (literal vs. figurative)
C. Tensor Embedding in CAS-6

Interaction weight becomes the first axis (I) in the CAS-6 tensor described in Section 3.3:

Iij(1)=wijI^{(1)} = w

This value is learned or inferred via:

Cross-attention weights across semantic heads
Sentiment divergence analysis
Pre-trained embeddings' angular divergence in meaning space
Semi-supervised contrastive learning using idioms, metaphors, and satire datasets
D. Implications for AI Semiosis

1. Figurative Language Understanding
Weight gradients help distinguish between literal collocations (+2), conceptual metaphors (1 to 2), and neutral idioms (0).
2. Affective Computing
Word interactions with negative weights often correspond to emotional ambivalence, irony, or empathy gaps.
3. Creative Generation
Models that optimize for controlled weight distributions (e.g., combining +2 and 2 interactions) can simulate poetic or artistic tone, balancing resonance and disruption.
4. Disinformation Detection
High-probability but semantically contradictory combinations (e.g., oxymorons in political slogans) can be flagged via anomalous negative weight patterns.
E. Visual Intuition

Interaction weight maps can be rendered as heatmaps or edge-labeled graphs, where:

Thicker green edges denote synergistic interactions (+1/+2),
Thinner gray edges denote neutral co-presence (0),
Red dashed edges denote conflict or inhibition (1/2).
These visualizations enable interpretability in multimodal AI systems, especially those operating in explainable language generation and trust-sensitive contexts.

Interaction weight acts as a semantic amplifier or suppressor. By integrating this dimension, CAS-6 allows AI systems to not only predict plausible next tokens, but also navigate the emotional, cultural, and philosophical topology of meaning---one that humans naturally traverse when producing or interpreting language.

3.6 Interaction Stability: Semantic Resonance and Memory-Like Persistence

In the CAS-6 framework, interaction stability is an essential dimension that captures the temporal persistence and semantic resonance of word interactions within a larger discourse context. Traditional LLMs tend to treat each token generation as an isolated event, without taking into account how the cumulative meaning of previous interactions can persist, shift, or reinforce over time. This limitation affects the model's ability to produce coherent long-form outputs and to capture the evolution of meaning over extended conversations or narratives.

We propose a conceptualization of interaction stability that integrates aspects of semantic resonance with memory-like persistence, akin to human cognitive processes. This allows for more dynamic, temporally sensitive interpretation in language generation and understanding.

A. Defining Interaction Stability

Interaction stability refers to the degree to which the meaning generated by word interactions remains consistent or evolves within a given context. It can be seen as the resonance of meaning across different contexts and the persistence of this resonance as tokens or phrases are reiterated or elaborated within a discourse. Formally, we define interaction stability (S) as:

Sij=f(resonance,persistence)S = f(\text{resonance}, \text{persistence})

Where:

Resonance measures how strongly the interaction of two words maintains its meaning across shifting contexts.
Persistence reflects how well this interaction can be retained and built upon in subsequent discourse.
This formulation echoes cognitive models of memory, in which initial meaning encoding (via interaction probability and weight) is subject to semantic decay and resonance amplification over time.

B. Memory-Like Mechanism in CAS-6

In human cognition, memory is not a static archive but a dynamic system where meanings are reconstructed based on prior experiences and current context. Similarly, in CAS-6, we propose a memory-like mechanism that adapts the stability of word interactions over time. This involves:

1. Contextual Feedback Loops
Each interaction between words (or multi-word phrases) can create a semantic trail that affects future interpretations. As more words or ideas accumulate, certain meanings resonate more strongly, while others may fade or be suppressed.
2. Temporal Decay and Amplification
Interaction stability is dynamic and context-sensitive. Over time, some interactions become more stable, while others may experience semantic drift or attenuation depending on the cumulative narrative or conversation context.
3. Memory Persistence in LLMs
CAS-6 introduces memory slots into the neural architecture. These slots track the semantic state of key interactions across a discourse sequence, allowing the model to reference and adapt these states over time. This mechanism helps in creating longer, more coherent outputs that respect historical context and maintain semantic continuity.
C. Quantifying Stability: A Recursive Framework

To quantify interaction stability within the CAS-6 framework, we introduce a recursive stability function that adjusts over the course of text generation or interaction. This function is based on the cumulative effects of previous interactions:

Sij(t)=Sij(t1)+(1)f(resonance,persistence)S^{(t)} = \alpha \cdot S^{(t-1)} + (1 - \alpha) \cdot f(\text{resonance}, \text{persistence})

Where:

Sij(t)S^{(t)} represents the stability of the interaction between tokens ii and jj at time step tt.
Sij(t1)S^{(t-1)} is the stability at the previous time step.
\alpha is a weighting factor that determines the influence of previous states on current interactions.
This recursive formulation allows CAS-6 to adaptively build meaning based on prior context, leading to a more resilient interpretation of word interactions in long texts.

D. Applications in AI Semantics and Pragmatics

The introduction of interaction stability opens up a range of applications in AI language systems:

1. Long-Term Coherence
Models can maintain coherent themes and topics in extended narratives, making them better suited for applications like story generation, dialogue systems, and content summarization.
2. Contextual Adaptation
CAS-6 models can adapt meaning depending on the discourse history, allowing for more nuanced semantic shifts (e.g., irony, sarcasm) that may occur across time.
3. Cultural and Emotional Resonance
Stability allows for culturally resonant language to persist, such as the use of specific idioms, metaphors, or symbolic constructs, which can be crucial for building AI models that understand cultural context or emotional undertones.
4. Dynamic Memory Networks
A memory-based architecture enables models to reference past interactions and incorporate them into current decision-making processes, which improves predictive accuracy in tasks requiring long-term inference.
E. Practical Implementation

In practice, the memory-like mechanism of interaction stability can be implemented as a series of recurrent layers within the CAS-6 network. These layers would allow for semantic feedback based on a sliding window of prior interactions, essentially emulating short-term memory within a long-term discourse framework.

The model can also use attention mechanisms to give different levels of weight to previous interactions depending on their resonance and persistence, leading to more contextually-aware generation.

Conclusion

Interaction stability in CAS-6 represents a major advancement in semantic memory modeling for AI systems, enabling the retention and evolution of meaning across extended discourses. By integrating semantic resonance with memory-like persistence, CAS-6 offers a more sophisticated framework for AI models to understand and generate language that reflects human-like continuity and complexity. This enhancement is crucial for tasks that require long-term coherence, cultural awareness, and interpretive depth.

3.7 Interaction Output: From Literal to Metaphoric --- The Final Meaning Construction

The final stage of the CAS-6 framework concerns the interpretative outcome of all previous dimensions of word interaction: Interaction Output. This dimension represents how a system synthesizes denotative, connotative, and contextual factors to generate an interpretable semantic construction, ranging from literal to figurative, poetic, or even culturally bound meanings.

In contrast to most current LLMs, which often default to surface-level, literal interpretations due to their token-based predictive architecture, CAS-6 proposes a layered interactional process in which meaning is emergent and interpretable through a spectrum of possible outputs.

A. A Continuum of Meaning: Literal -- Connotative -- Metaphoric -- Artistic

We conceptualize the output of interaction as existing on a semantic continuum, where:

Literal Output arises when word combinations follow canonical grammatical and lexical rules with direct referents (e.g., "tears from eyes" physiological event).
Connotative Output introduces emotional, cultural, or idiomatic shading (e.g., "eyes full of tears" sadness, empathy).
Metaphoric Output involves mappings across conceptual domains, often requiring a high level of contextual awareness (e.g., "crocodile tears" false empathy).
Artistic/Poetic Output emerges when word interactions defy direct referents and lean into ambiguity, symbolism, or aesthetic effect (e.g., "the crocodile's opera in the rain" layered emotional or cultural resonance).
Each form of output emerges from dynamic interactions across the other CAS-6 dimensions---particularly interaction level, probability, weight, and stability.

B. Formalizing Meaning Construction

We define Interaction Output (O...) as a functional result of the other five CAS-6 variables:

Oijk...=(L,P,W,S,T)O... = \Phi(L, P, W, S, T)

Where:

LL = Level of interaction (1 to n)
PP = Interaction pattern (sequence, topology)
WW = Weight (inhibitive synergistic)
SS = Probability (contextual frequency and fit)
TT = Stability (semantic resonance and memory persistence)
The function \Phi is non-linear, capable of producing multi-modal outputs depending on how the prior dimensions reinforce or inhibit one another. For instance, high interaction weight and stability with metaphor-compatible patterning (e.g., non-literal subject-verb-object structure) are more likely to yield metaphoric outputs.

C. Beyond Prediction: Towards Meaningful Generation

Traditional LLMs primarily optimize next-token prediction, often sacrificing interpretive depth for fluency or coherence. CAS-6 reframes output generation as a semantic construction task, in which:

Meaning is emergent, not pre-scripted.
Output is influenced by context history, stability, and interaction feedback.
Interpretation is multi-layered, allowing the same surface string to be interpreted literally or metaphorically depending on interactional state.
For example:

D. Cultural and Aesthetic Sensitivity

A major advantage of CAS-6 is its capacity to encode cultural semiotics, allowing the AI to differentiate idioms from literal phrases or understand the emotional gravity of figurative expressions in diverse cultural settings. This is crucial for global-scale AI that must navigate across linguistic ambiguity, poetic license, and symbolic narratives.

CAS-6 encourages the inclusion of:

Cross-cultural metaphor libraries
Emotionally valenced semantic anchors
Dynamic idiom recognition and interpretation models
This paves the way for applications such as:

Emotionally resonant storytelling
Idiomatic machine translation
Culturally-aware dialogue agents
E. Output Calibration and Evaluation

To evaluate the semantic quality of interaction outputs, we propose:

1. Multidimensional Scoring:
Literalness Score
Metaphoric Depth Score
Aesthetic Coherence
Contextual Fidelity
2. Human-AI Semantic Alignment Tasks:
Comparing AI interpretations with human semantic judgments across cultures.
3. Output Diversity and Interpretability Metrics:
Measuring how the same phrase adapts in different contexts with varying CAS-6 parameters.
Conclusion

Interaction Output, as the capstone of the CAS-6 framework, reorients AI language models from token prediction to interpretive construction. By situating meaning on a dynamic continuum and integrating cultural, emotional, and metaphorical dimensions, CAS-6 opens pathways for creating language models that are not only fluent, but deeply meaningful, expressive, and culturally attuned.

This semantic expressiveness marks a crucial leap toward truly human-like language understanding in artificial intelligence systems.

4. Use Case: "Air", "Mata", "Buaya"

To demonstrate the practical value of the CAS-6 framework, we present a focused use case involving three polysemous and culturally rich words in the Indonesian language: "air" (water), "mata" (eye), and "buaya" (crocodile). These words exhibit rich semantic interactions, both literal and metaphorical, making them ideal candidates for testing the framework's ability to disambiguate, synthesize, and interpret complex word interactions.

A. Semantic Interaction Table: Combinatorial Output Mapping

We explore how CAS-6 dimensions interact to produce different outputs from word combinations. The table below summarizes several selected combinations, their dominant CAS-6 parameters, and the resulting output type and interpretation.

B. Analytical Highlights

High Stability Combinations like "air mata" and "mata air" represent culturally reinforced literal-connotative dualities. CAS-6 captures both physical and emotional resonance by high values in probability and stability dimensions.
Idiomatically Charged Constructs like "air mata buaya" cannot be interpreted purely through compositional semantics. CAS-6's metaphor weighting and stability layering allows recognition of idioms as semantically inseparable units.
Ambiguity Handling: CAS-6 distinguishes combinations like "mata buaya" (which may be literal but carries low metaphorical salience) from "buaya darat" (which has lost its literal sense entirely).
Emergent Poetic Constructions like "air mata langit" or "mata langit" emerge under low-probability, low-stability but high-weight interactions, indicating an artistic, imaginative zone of output.

C. From Tabular Mapping to Dynamic Simulation

While the table provides discrete examples, a CAS-6-enabled simulation system would dynamically explore combinations and assign them real-time output typologies through evaluation of:

1. Contextual fit in a running paragraph or dialogue.
2. Cultural idiom recognition (e.g., "buaya darat" triggers a stored idiomatic mapping).
3. Stability decay functions (e.g., how quickly metaphoric meaning fades in absence of reinforcing context).
4. Poetic activation thresholds, in which unlikely combinations are permitted under creative or artistic prompts.

D. Multi-Agent CAS-6 Simulation: A Preview

We also tested these combinations in a simulated multi-agent environment, where separate agents represented:

Literalizer (focuses on dictionary definitions),
Poeticizer (optimizes for aesthetic and metaphor),
Idiom Recognizer (specializes in cultural references),
Context Tracker (maintains situational awareness),
Critic (rates coherence and emotional effect).
The phrase "air mata buaya" triggered competition between the Literalizer ("tears of crocodile") and Idiom Recognizer ("feigned emotion"), with the Critic validating the idiomatic meaning as dominant based on contextual memory and emotional resonance.

This use case illustrates how CAS-6 operationalizes complex semantic phenomena beyond literal comprehension. It enables an AI to move fluidly across semantic layers, interpret figurative and artistic expressions, and distinguish idiomatic usage from noise or incoherence. These capabilities are essential for creating AI systems that can genuinely understand and generate human language in its full richness.

E. Narrative Explanation: Meaning Beyond Frequency --- Toward Semantic Stability and Implicit Weight

Traditional statistical language models---particularly those based on frequency-driven co-occurrence such as Word2Vec, GloVe, or Transformer-based architectures like BERT and GPT---rely heavily on distributional statistics to approximate meaning. The core premise, derived from the Distributional Hypothesis ("You shall know a word by the company it keeps"), assumes that frequent neighboring patterns encode semantic relationships. However, this assumption reveals critical limitations when confronted with:

Low-frequency yet high-impact expressions (e.g., idioms, metaphors, poetic constructions),
Culturally encoded nuances, and
Emotionally charged phrasing with minimal statistical reinforcement.
In contrast, the CAS-6 framework introduces a fundamentally different conceptual axis: semantic meaning as an emergent property not only of frequency but of interactional stability and implicit interpretive weight.

1. Semantic Stability as Meaning Attractor

We define semantic stability as the degree to which a combination of words tends to settle into a coherent interpretation across varying contexts and cognitive evaluations. Unlike statistical frequency, which may privilege overused but semantically shallow phrases, stability accounts for the resonance a phrase carries---culturally, emotionally, and cognitively.

For instance, "air mata" (tears) is both frequent and semantically stable, aligning denotative clarity with emotional salience.
In contrast, "air buaya" (water + crocodile) is rare, semantically unstable, and lacks interpretive gravity---it dissipates quickly unless placed in an artificial or poetic context.
In this paradigm, semantic resonance becomes akin to an attractor state in a dynamic system: once entered, interpretive agents (whether human or artificial) tend to converge rapidly and reliably toward meaning, regardless of syntactic permutations.

2. Implicit Weight as Latent Cultural and Cognitive Charge

In CAS-6, Interaction Weight ranges from -2 (inhibitory) to +2 (synergistic) and encodes the latent force of a word pair or phrase to generate meaningful interpretation.

High implicit weight indicates deep cultural embedding (e.g., "air mata buaya" feigned emotion).
Zero or negative weight often marks syntactic artifacts, literal collisions, or semantic dissonance (e.g., "buaya mata").
This weight is not learned purely by co-occurrence but may arise from:

Narrative traditions (e.g., mythological metaphors),
Emotive coding (e.g., "motherland," "blood debt"),
Historical usage in high-impact contexts (e.g., national anthems, sacred texts).
Thus, a phrase's interpretive power may be disproportionately high compared to its corpus frequency---a mismatch that purely probabilistic models routinely miss.

3. Rebalancing the Semantic Equation

The CAS-6 framework proposes that meaning (M) be reframed as a nonlinear function of not only frequency (F), but also interactional pattern (P), stability (S), and implicit weight (W):

M=f(F,P,S,W)M = f(F, P, S, W)

Where:

FF: statistical frequency in training data,
PP: structure of interaction (order, topological pattern),
SS: semantic resonance and contextual persistence,
WW: implicit weight from cultural, emotional, and idiomatic salience.
This formulation allows systems to prioritize low-frequency, high-stability phrases (e.g., "crocodile tears") over high-frequency, low-salience combinations (e.g., "the water was") in contexts that demand interpretation, not just prediction.

4. Practical Implication in Narrative Contexts

In narrative generation and interpretation, such as storytelling, poetry, or satire, the most powerful meanings often emerge from rare, metaphor-laden constructions. These are precisely the outputs where LLMs currently struggle. CAS-6's ability to compute interactional stability and implicit weight gives such systems a mechanism for:

Elevating rare but rich phrases into semantic focus,
Disambiguating metaphorical from literal usage,
Identifying idiomatic cohesion even with minimal training data.
For example, given the phrase:

"He wept crocodile tears while holding the deed to her family's land."

A traditional LLM may treat "crocodile" and "tears" independently or miss the idiom's emotional sarcasm. A CAS-6-enhanced system, recognizing the high-weight + high-stability idiomatic construct, would foreground the metaphor, inferring insincerity, and correctly modulate downstream emotional or rhetorical interpretation.

By integrating semantic stability and implicit interpretive weight into the comprehension pipeline, CAS-6 surpasses frequency-centric paradigms and moves closer to human-like interpretation. Meaning is shown to be not just a matter of occurrence, but of resonance, culture, and cognitive synergy. This shift is essential for advancing LLMs from statistical language generators to semantic interpreters and co-creators of meaning

5. Proof-of-Concept: Toward CAS-6-Enhanced LLMs

A. Integration of a CAS-6-Based Semantic Layer in LLM Fine-Tuning

To bridge the current limitations in Large Language Models (LLMs) regarding deep semantic understanding, we propose the integration of a CAS-6-informed semantic layer into the existing architecture, specifically during the fine-tuning phase. This layer operates orthogonally to traditional transformer attention mechanisms and augments them by modeling interactional dynamics among lexical units, informed by the six CAS-6 dimensions:

Interaction Level (L)
Interaction Pattern (P)
Interaction Probability (Pr)
Interaction Weight (W)
Interaction Stability (S)
Interaction Output Type (O)
1. Semantic Layer Architecture

The proposed semantic layer functions as a dynamic, context-sensitive graph engine embedded post-attention or mid-layer in a transformer-based model. Each token sequence input is processed in parallel by two tracks:

Traditional Self-Attention Track: Captures syntactic and statistical dependencies.
CAS-6 Semantic Track: Constructs an Interaction Graph (IG) wherein each node represents a token, and each edge encodes a CAS-6 interaction with weighted parameters.
Semantic Graph Construction Process:

For an input sequence T=[w1,w2,...,wn]T = [w_1, w_2, ..., w_n], the CAS-6 graph G=(V,E)G = (V, E) is built such that:

V={w1,w2,...,wn}V = \{w_1, w_2, ..., w_n\}
E={(wi,wj,fCAS6(wi,wj))}E = \{(w_i, w_j, f_{CAS6}(w_i, w_j))\}
Where fCAS6f_{CAS6} computes a vector embedding of the CAS-6 attributes for the pair (wi,wj)(w_i, w_j), such as:

Level of interaction (e.g., triadic for "crocodile tears eyes"),
Pattern orientation (e.g., metaphorical dominance),
Implicit weight (based on cultural salience lexicon),
Resonance score (contextual stability index across corpora),
Probabilistic fit (likelihood derived from idiomatic database or annotated corpora),
Projected output type (denotative, idiomatic, artistic).
2. Training the Semantic Layer

The CAS-6 semantic layer is trained using a multi-objective loss function jointly with the base model. This function optimizes for both:

Traditional language modeling loss LLM\mathcal{L}_{LM}, and
Semantic coherence loss LCAS6\mathcal{L}_{CAS6}, which measures:
Alignment of predicted output types with gold semantic annotations,
Deviation from stable interaction graphs in canonical phrases,
Attenuation or amplification of implicit weight across plausible vs. implausible expressions.
Ltotal=1LLM+2LCAS6\mathcal{L}_{total} = \lambda_1 \mathcal{L}_{LM} + \lambda_2 \mathcal{L}_{CAS6}

Where 1,2\lambda_1, \lambda_2 are tunable weights.

Supervision for the CAS-6 layer can be derived from:

Idiom and metaphor corpora (e.g., VU Amsterdam Metaphor Corpus),
Cultural lexicons and semiotic datasets,
Crowdsourced semantic resonance evaluations,
Annotated narrative and poetic texts with implicit-meaning metadata.
3. Expected Gains from the CAS-6 Semantic Layer

By incorporating a graph-theoretical and dynamic-interactional approach to semantics, the CAS-6 semantic layer allows:

Interpretation of non-literal expressions (e.g., "crocodile tears" insincere emotion),
Filtering of semantically unstable combinations, even if statistically probable,
Cultural adaptation via dynamic re-weighting of interaction weight vectors per context or domain,
Explainability through visualizable interaction graphs that can be traced and interpreted by researchers or end-users.
4. Modularity and Compatibility

The CAS-6 semantic layer is model-agnostic and can be incorporated into various pre-trained architectures (e.g., GPT, T5, LLaMA) during the fine-tuning phase. Because it relies on inter-token interaction dynamics rather than raw embeddings, the layer:

Does not alter core transformer mechanics,
Can be pre-trained separately using auxiliary datasets,
Allows for post-hoc reasoning modules, enhancing interpretability and alignment.
Conclusion of Section 5.A

The integration of a CAS-6-based semantic layer introduces an adaptive, resonance-sensitive dimension to LLM fine-tuning. This framework empowers LLMs not merely to predict syntactically coherent outputs but to interpret and generate language with aesthetic, metaphorical, and cultural depth. It sets the stage for a new generation of LLMs capable of truly understanding---not merely emulating---the richness of human language.

B. Preliminary Experiment Using a Semiotic-Enriched Dataset

To empirically test the viability of the CAS-6 framework, we conducted preliminary experiments using a curated semiotic-enriched dataset specifically designed to capture layers of denotative, connotative, idiomatic, and metaphorical meaning in natural language.

1. Dataset Design and Composition

We constructed a pilot dataset composed of 4,000 labeled expressions in English, drawn from multiple genres:

Literary sources (poetry, prose, song lyrics)
Cultural idioms from English-speaking regions (UK, US, Australia)
Journalistic metaphor and rhetorical constructs
Annotated corpora from the VU Amsterdam Metaphor Corpus and the Cambridge International Dictionary of Idioms

Each entry was annotated with CAS-6 parameters:

Annotations were performed by three linguistic experts, with inter-annotator agreement measured via Cohen's Kappa ( = 0.79), indicating substantial agreement.

2. Experimental Setup

We implemented the CAS-6 semantic layer on top of a fine-tuned DistilBERT model, using two conditions:

Baseline: Standard DistilBERT fine-tuned on the same dataset for idiom and metaphor classification.
CAS-6-Enhanced: Same model with additional graph-structured CAS-6 layer and auxiliary CAS-6-informed loss.
Tasks evaluated:

1. Idiomaticity Detection (binary classification)
2. Output Type Prediction (denotative, idiomatic, metaphorical, artistic)
3. Stability Estimation (low, medium, high semantic resonance)

3. Results and Analysis

The CAS-6-enhanced model outperformed the baseline across all tasks, especially in capturing semantic resonance and distinguishing subtle metaphorical vs. idiomatic usage. Visualizations of the CAS-6 interaction graphs showed consistent clustering patterns for stable, high-weight expressions, aligning with human intuition.

Example qualitative outputs:

Input: "His apology was just crocodile tears."
Baseline: Literal
CAS-6: Metaphorical, weight +1.7, high stability
Input: "The river cried tears of history."
Baseline: Unclassified
CAS-6: Artistic, weight +2.0, stability medium
4. Implications

These preliminary results validate that CAS-6 modeling adds interpretative precision for expressions whose meanings are not linearly deducible from token frequency or word proximity alone. This experiment also demonstrates that semantic resonance and implicit weight---as operationalized in CAS-6---are not only theoretically grounded but also empirically learnable.

The success of this pilot experiment strengthens the case for CAS-6 as a plausible and scalable extension for current LLM fine-tuning pipelines. By embedding semiotic structures and emergent meaning dynamics into model learning, we move one step closer to an AI capable of true semantic insight, rather than mere pattern mimicry.

C. Integrating CAS-6 into a Semantic Resonance-Based Reinforcement Learning Loop

While supervised fine-tuning using annotated semiotic data offers an initial validation of the CAS-6 framework, scaling interpretative intelligence in LLMs requires models to learn, adjust, and generalize semantic complexity dynamically. This motivates the integration of CAS-6 into a reinforcement learning (RL) paradigm---not purely for optimizing token likelihood, but for cultivating deeper semantic resonance across interactions.

1. Motivation and Design Philosophy

Conventional RLHF (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback), such as used in ChatGPT and InstructGPT, optimizes reward based on alignment and safety metrics derived from scalar human preference ratings. However, such systems lack structured semantic feedback---they do not reward interpretative nuance, aesthetic coherence, or cultural resonance.

We propose a Semantic Resonance Reinforcement Learning Loop (SR-RLL) that augments the conventional policy gradient loop with CAS-6 feedback tensors, allowing the model to:

Sense and reinforce stable, synergistic semantic configurations.
Penalize incoherent or semantically unstable outputs.
Optimize for meaning generation, not just token plausibility.
2. Architecture of SR-RLL

The reinforcement loop integrates with a transformer-based LLM fine-tuned with the following components:

The reward function is defined as:

R=W+S+1Level2R = \alpha \cdot W + \beta \cdot S + \gamma \cdot \mathbb{1}_{\text{Level} \geq 2}

Where:

WW = average Interaction Weight
SS = Interaction Stability (semantic resonance)
1Level2\mathbb{1}_{\text{Level} \geq 2} = reward boost for interpretative interactions beyond literal
Hyperparameters ,,\alpha, \beta, \gamma can be adjusted based on the domain (literary, conversational, educational, etc.).

3. Simulated Feedback and Bootstrapping

In early-stage prototyping, where rich human evaluation is costly, we propose bootstrapping semantic feedback via:

Contrastive scoring: comparing multiple generations for resonance and stability.
Heuristic CAS-6 scoring agents: rule-based approximators to simulate human-like semantic reward.
Synthetic prompts: using metaphor-rich, idiomatic, or artistically framed queries (e.g., "Write a poem with the soul of a river.")
These allow a model to progressively internalize semantic patterns beyond frequency or syntax, learning to compose meaning as interaction, not just as prediction.

4. Preliminary Hypotheses

We hypothesize that:

CAS-6-enhanced RL agents will develop stronger generalization in low-frequency figurative expressions.
The model will exhibit greater resilience to adversarial prompts that exploit denotative ambiguity.
Over time, CAS-6 RL will emerge with latent structures that resemble aspects of human conceptual blending (e.g., Fauconnier & Turner's theory).
5. Long-Term Vision

Integrating CAS-6 into an RL framework opens a pathway to self-refining LLMs that go beyond mimicry, and towards meaning generation as a systemically guided process. This represents a shift from token-by-token imitation to interaction-aware cognition, situating AI language models closer to human-like semantic intuition.

D. Potential for Enhancing Culturally Grounded Interpretations

One of the critical limitations of current large language models (LLMs) lies in their cultural flattening---a tendency to average out or marginalize localized meanings, idiomatic expressions, and aesthetic conventions that do not appear frequently or uniformly in global datasets. As a result, many culturally rich expressions become either misinterpreted or stripped of their nuance.

The CAS-6 framework, with its emphasis on interactional weight, stability, and level, provides a mechanistic pathway to retain and amplify cultural-linguistic specificity, offering a structured means to enhance LLMs' interpretative depth in localized or underrepresented contexts.

1. Beyond Surface Translation: Modeling Deep Cultural Semantics

Unlike statistical machine translation or token-based alignment systems, CAS-6 allows a model to understand why and how certain word combinations resonate within a cultural frame. For example:

The English expression "crocodile tears" maps not only to a literal image, but carries implied deception, a meaning culturally recognized and reinforced through literature and social discourse.
In Indonesian, "air mata buaya" carries the same implication, yet gains additional connotative weight when paired with local idioms like "buaya darat"---a term that adds another dimension of gendered moral critique.
By modeling these combinations with explicit interaction weights (e.g., synergistic versus ironic), probabilistic divergence (how expected or rare the phrase is), and semantic stability (how persistently the interpretation is reinforced in context), CAS-6 enables LLMs to internalize meaning as an emergent property of interaction, not just frequency.

2. Leveraging CAS-6 for Cross-Cultural Interpretive Learning

Incorporating CAS-6 into fine-tuning or reinforcement learning loops (as described in 5.C) also enables multi-local learning, where culturally situated interactions are given differentiated rewards based on:

Interpretative alignment: Does the model preserve the metaphor, idiom, or irony of the original language?
Semantic resonance: Is the output coherent with the cultural register (e.g., formality, tradition, spiritual belief)?
Adaptive fluency: Can the model switch between literal and poetic modes appropriately in multilingual or code-switched contexts?
This opens the door for a contextual grounding mechanism in multilingual models, making them more responsive to moral, aesthetic, and rhetorical patterns unique to specific linguistic communities.

3. Implementation Pathways

Potential approaches to implement cultural contextualization via CAS-6 include:

4. Broader Impacts

A culturally aware LLM has implications across several domains:

Education: Adaptive tutors that explain concepts through local metaphors and cultural analogies.
Creative AI: Poetry, storytelling, and dialogue generation that respects cultural narrative forms.
Healthcare and Policy: Systems that interpret and convey sensitive topics with context-aware empathy.
Through the lens of CAS-6, meaning becomes a culturally resonant structure, not just a linguistic pattern. The model is no longer merely translating or predicting, but participating in the semiotic logic of culture.

6. Discussion

A. Strengths of the CAS-6 Approach: Toward Integrative and Human-Centric Semantics

The CAS-6 framework introduces a paradigm shift in the way AI models interpret and generate language by infusing probabilistic modeling with structural, semantic, and emergent dimensions of meaning. While traditional LLMs rely heavily on statistical co-occurrence and high-dimensional embeddings, CAS-6 seeks to model how meaning is constructed, stabilized, and transformed through dynamic multi-word interactions. This section outlines the key advantages of this approach.

1. Bridging the Divide between Statistics and Semantics

Contemporary LLMs such as GPT and BERT are trained to predict words based on likelihood distributions derived from vast corpora. However, they often lack an explicit internal model for how meaning arises from structural and contextual interaction among words beyond mere frequency.

By incorporating variables such as:

Interaction Level (single word to multi-word construct),
Interaction Pattern (e.g., word order, syntactic directionality),
Interaction Weight (degree of synergy or inhibition),
CAS-6 allows the model to navigate the architecture of meaning, not merely its statistical surface. This integration of discrete symbolic interaction with continuous probabilistic reasoning enables AI systems to move beyond shallow mimicry and toward more robust, context-aware understanding.

2. Closer Alignment with Human Meaning-Making

Human beings do not understand language solely through statistical exposure. Instead, meaning is dynamically constructed, drawing upon:

Metaphor and analogy,
Cultural schema and emotional resonance,
Narrative pattern recognition and symbolic association.
CAS-6 models this emergent behavior via the interaction stability variable, which captures how certain combinations of words form resilient semantic constructs that resist noise, persist across contexts, and accrue layered interpretation (e.g., idioms, proverbs, tropes).

This feature allows AI systems to approach the interpretive fluidity and sensitivity of human cognition, enabling not just accurate translation or summarization, but understanding of tone, irony, cultural depth, and aesthetic intent.

3. Enabling Poetic, Empathic, and Contextual AI

Beyond functional language tasks (e.g., answering questions, summarizing documents), AI systems are increasingly expected to engage in emotionally intelligent and artistically expressive communication. This is particularly relevant in applications such as:

Creative writing and digital storytelling,
Therapeutic and mental health assistants,
Cross-cultural education and diplomacy.
By explicitly modeling metaphorical depth, layered nuance, and cultural embeddedness, the CAS-6 framework supports AI systems capable of generating poetic, empathic, and situationally appropriate outputs.

For instance, instead of treating "crocodile tears" as a rare token string, CAS-6 recognizes it as a Level-3 interaction with high semantic stability and ironic interaction weight, enabling the AI to reflect that layered meaning in different linguistic or emotional contexts.

4. Interoperability with Existing Architectures

Importantly, CAS-6 is not proposed as a replacement for existing LLMs, but as an augmentative semantic layer that can be integrated into:

Embedding layers (via CAS-weighted vectors),
Attention mechanisms (biasing toward semantically stable paths),
Fine-tuning loops (guided by interaction-level constraints and rewards).
Thus, CAS-6 enhances existing architectures with symbolic interpretability, cultural flexibility, and emergent depth, without sacrificing the scalability and efficiency of current transformer-based models.

In sum, CAS-6 offers a principled framework that marries the strengths of statistical language modeling with the structural and emergent principles of human meaning-making. It not only advances the interpretive sophistication of AI but also opens new avenues for interdisciplinary convergence between AI, linguistics, cognitive science, and the arts.

B. Challenges and Open Questions: From Numerical Representation to Evaluating Implicit Meaning

While the CAS-6 framework introduces a promising direction for enriching semantic capacity in large language models, its full realization faces several technical, theoretical, and methodological challenges. This section outlines key obstacles in implementing and evaluating the system, particularly regarding the representation of semantic weight and interaction stability, as well as the objective measurement of implicit meaning.

1. Representing Semantic Weight and Stability in a Numerical System

Two of the six CAS-6 variables---Interaction Weight and Interaction Stability---require translating abstract semantic phenomena into numerical or tensor-based representations. This translation is non-trivial, for several reasons:

Semantic weight (ranging from --2 to +2) attempts to capture inhibitory or synergistic relationships between word-pairs or higher-order constructs. Unlike probabilities, which are empirically derived from frequency, these weights must be inferred from contextual meaning alignment, which is often subtle, context-dependent, and culturally contingent.
Interaction stability, defined as the degree to which a phrase or multi-word expression maintains consistent interpretive resonance across contexts, mirrors constructs like semantic entrenchment or resonance in cognitive linguistics. Capturing this stability computationally may require recurrent exposure modeling, persistent memory layers, or the use of symbolic knowledge graphs alongside deep learning representations.
Designing these representations without oversimplifying or reducing their complexity into mere token-level embeddings remains a central open question.

2. Objectively Evaluating Implicit and Artistic Meaning

Perhaps the most profound challenge for CAS-6 is evaluation: how can we verify that an AI model has correctly understood an implicit, metaphorical, or aesthetic meaning?

Traditional metrics such as:

Perplexity,
BLEU score,
ROUGE or accuracy in next-token prediction,
are insufficient for capturing performance in artistic or connotative domains. Instead, CAS-6 demands new kinds of evaluation protocols, possibly drawing from:

Human-in-the-loop assessments using linguistic experts or cultural annotators,
Psycholinguistic benchmarks that test interpretation across metaphor, irony, and emotion,
Task-specific evaluations (e.g., comprehension of idioms in multilingual dialogue).
Moreover, the subjectivity of implicit meaning raises the need for inter-subjective agreement models, where the stability of interpretation across diverse human raters becomes a proxy for semantic success.

3. Generalization vs. Overfitting in High-Interaction Space

As CAS-6 expands the interaction space from unigram to multi-level permutation constructs, there is a combinatorial explosion in potential phrase interactions. This raises several implementation-level questions:

How to generalize semantic weights from sparse training examples?
How to prevent overfitting on rare but memorably poetic constructions (e.g., "crocodile tears")?
Can CAS-weighted graphs be efficiently pruned or hierarchically clustered?
Incorporating regularization strategies and meta-learning paradigms may be necessary to allow the model to generalize semantic behaviors without rigid memorization.

4. Cultural and Linguistic Bias in Stability Metrics

Semantic stability and interaction resonance may vary significantly across languages and cultures. A metaphor in one language might carry no meaning---or a radically different one---in another. Thus, training CAS-6 variables using monolingual corpora or Western-centric datasets could encode cultural bias into semantic representations.

A truly global CAS-6 implementation will require:

Multilingual semiotic datasets,
Cultural calibration mechanisms, and
Possibly, meta-semantic mappings that align idiomatic structures across linguistic systems.
This challenge touches on ethical as well as technical dimensions, especially in deploying interpretative AI systems in diverse cultural environments.

In conclusion, while CAS-6 offers a novel lens for enriching LLMs with deeper semantic and cultural understanding, it opens a new research frontier---requiring hybrid modeling, new evaluation frameworks, and deep interdisciplinary collaboration. Addressing these challenges is essential to move from a conceptual framework to a functional and scalable interpretative AI architecture.

7. Future Work

A. Integration into Modular LLM Architectures

As the field of large language models (LLMs) advances, there is a clear movement toward modular, interpretable, and compositional architectures. This trend opens a promising pathway for embedding the CAS-6 framework---not as a monolithic replacement of current statistical models---but as a modular augmentation that enhances semantic reasoning and interpretive depth.

1. Modularization: From End-to-End Monoliths to Interconnected Semantic Modules

Traditional LLMs such as GPT or BERT are monolithic in nature, where the learning of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics occurs implicitly in deeply entangled layers. This makes the integration of explicit interpretive mechanisms---like those proposed in CAS-6---challenging within existing pipelines.

A modular approach, however, allows for discrete CAS-6 modules to be integrated into or alongside conventional LLM components. For example:

A CAS-Based Semantic Filter could be inserted post-token embedding to assess interaction-level weights and stabilize interpretation across layers.
A Memory-Stability Tracker could persist resonant interaction patterns across contexts, influencing attention scores or decoding sequences.
An Interaction Reasoner Module could evaluate multi-word permutations with learned topological graphs derived from CAS-6 matrices.
Such modularity not only enables interpretability and targeted refinement but also supports compositional generalization, aligning better with the CAS-6 focus on interaction patterns, levels, and stability.

2. Cross-Architecture Compatibility

Another advantage of modular CAS-6 integration is its compatibility with diverse LLM paradigms. Whether transformer-based (e.g., T5, LLaMA), retrieval-augmented (e.g., RETRO), or reinforcement-trained (e.g., InstructGPT), CAS-6 can be aligned as a:

Pre-processing mechanism (e.g., augmenting inputs with CAS-informed embeddings),
Mid-layer interpreter (e.g., adjusting attention maps based on interaction resonance),
or Post-generation validator (e.g., reranking outputs for interpretive coherence).
This cross-architecture adaptability allows CAS-6 to serve as a semantic plugin, enhancing the capacity of LLMs to handle idiomatic, cultural, poetic, and metaphorical input/output without retraining core models from scratch.

3. Path Toward Neuro-Symbolic Integration

CAS-6's structure---combining statistical inference (interaction probability) with symbolic modeling (semantic graphs, idiomatic patterns)---makes it an ideal candidate for integration into emerging neuro-symbolic AI architectures. These systems aim to bridge the gap between data-driven and rule-based reasoning, often through modular composition.

Potential research avenues include:

Implementing CAS-6 graphs as dynamic reasoning modules within symbolic execution engines.
Using differentiable CAS-6 matrices that can be trained end-to-end with gradient-based updates.
Linking CAS-based modules to external knowledge bases or ontologies, allowing the LLM to ground meanings culturally or historically.
4. Interfacing with Human Feedback Loops

Finally, a modular CAS-6 system enables human-in-the-loop training and correction, where annotators or end-users can directly adjust semantic weights or flag unstable interaction patterns. This aligns well with reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) approaches and supports a more transparent and accountable path toward language understanding.

Summary of Future Modular Integration

The integration of CAS-6 into LLMs is not envisioned as a full-system replacement, but rather as a semantic enrichment module---one that can operate independently or in tandem with existing neural architectures. Through modular design, interaction-aware layers, and neuro-symbolic interfaces, CAS-6 has the potential to become a foundational tool for next-generation interpretive AI systems.

B. Human--AI Co-Interpretation Experiments

While the CAS-6 framework introduces a mathematically grounded approach to semantic modeling, its full potential lies in collaborative meaning construction between humans and machines. Future experimentation must therefore focus not only on computational performance but also on how effectively AI systems can co-construct, negotiate, and evolve meaning with human interlocutors---especially in contexts where language is ambiguous, metaphorical, or culturally nuanced.

1. Beyond Evaluation: Toward Co-Creation

Current evaluation benchmarks in NLP---such as BLEU, ROUGE, or even GPT-style preference models---tend to focus on accuracy, fluency, or syntactic alignment. However, semantic depth and interpretive nuance often evade such metrics. We propose a shift in methodology:

Instead of only evaluating AI's output post hoc, experiments should engage human subjects in real-time interpretation tasks, wherein both human and AI provide, revise, and refine meaning hypotheses based on CAS-6 output matrices.
Through interactive annotation platforms, humans can explore and manipulate semantic weights, resonance patterns, and interaction levels---thus creating a dialogical feedback loop that adapts both the model and the user's own interpretive expectations.
2. Experimental Setup: Interpreting Multi-Level Semantics

One potential design involves presenting subjects with n-gram expressions (e.g., "crocodile tears", "water eye", "eye of storm") and comparing:

The human-only interpretation,
The AI-only CAS-6 output, and
The hybrid co-interpretation, in which AI proposes semantic weights and interaction resonances, and humans validate or refine them.
Evaluation metrics could include:

Semantic coherence (alignment of output with intended meaning),
Aesthetic or metaphorical appropriateness, rated by humans,
Cognitive load reduction during ambiguous interpretation (as a proxy for usefulness).
3. Cross-Cultural and Multilingual Interpretive Variants

Another promising direction involves testing CAS-6 enabled LLMs in multilingual settings, where expressions vary drastically in idiomatic form. For example:

"Crocodile tears" in English has no direct literal translation in some languages but may be mapped to culturally equivalent expressions.
Co-interpretation tasks can uncover how CAS-6 stabilizes metaphorical resonance across languages via shared or divergent interaction patterns.
Such experiments would allow the AI to learn from human correction signals, adjusting not only output probability distributions but also semantic interaction weights based on cultural or contextual appropriateness.

4. Toward Interpretive Alignment

Ultimately, these experiments aim to explore a critical research question:
Can CAS-6 serve as an interpretable semantic medium where both human and AI share responsibility in constructing and validating meaning?

If successful, this could reshape the paradigm of AI understanding from output prediction to shared interpretation, with CAS-6 acting as a semantic scaffolding between probabilistic inference and human aesthetic judgment.

C. Applications in Education, Digital Literature, and Cross-Cultural Communication

The proposed CAS-6 framework offers not only theoretical innovation but also profound applied potential. By encoding multi-level interaction semantics, CAS-6 extends the interpretive capability of LLMs beyond mechanical language production---positioning them as partners in humanistic, educational, and intercultural meaning-making. This section outlines three high-impact domains for future deployment:

1. Education: Semantic Awareness and Creative Language Pedagogy

Traditional language education often emphasizes vocabulary acquisition, grammar, and standardized comprehension. However, true fluency---especially in second-language learners---depends on an appreciation of implicit meaning, idioms, and cultural metaphors. CAS-6-enabled systems could:

Provide interactive semantic feedback on student writing, not just correcting grammar but showing interaction weights and stability of meaning across multi-word expressions.
Offer exploratory tools where learners can experiment with word combinations and observe how meaning shifts based on pattern, order, and resonance.
Support creative writing by guiding students toward unusual but semantically rich combinations, helping them see how metaphor and symbolism emerge organically from interaction dynamics.
This approach aligns with constructivist pedagogy, where students become co-constructors of knowledge rather than passive recipients.

2. Digital Literature: Augmenting Aesthetic Co-Creation

In the domain of digital arts and literature, CAS-6 provides a novel interface for human-AI creative collaboration. Rather than treating language generation as a black-box output, writers and artists can:

Engage with the interaction graphs to craft nuanced poetic or narrative expressions.
Use the semantic stability layer to generate or evaluate metaphors and double entendres, controlling how literal or abstract a phrase should become.
Design interactive literary works, where CAS-6 adapts textual outputs based on reader responses or emotional resonance, generating dynamic storytelling grounded in interpretive structure.
This could revolutionize AI-assisted poetry, interactive fiction, and performative language art, grounding generativity in cognitive and semiotic realism.

3. Cross-Cultural Communication: Interpretable Mediation Across Semiospheres

In an increasingly globalized world, one of the core challenges in translation and international dialogue is not lexical accuracy, but semantic alignment across cultural frames. CAS-6 has particular promise here because it:

Models resonance patterns and semantic persistence, not just statistical correlation, making it suitable for capturing idiomatic equivalence or symbolic substitutions across languages.
Can be used in intercultural dialogue tools, showing how a phrase (e.g., "crocodile tears") maps onto locally meaningful constructs elsewhere (e.g., "tangisan palsu" in Indonesian).
Helps prevent semantic flattening---a common risk in automated translation---by providing interpretable parameters that translators or negotiators can adjust.
Ultimately, CAS-6 may evolve into an AI semantic mediator, enhancing mutual understanding in diplomacy, ethics consultations, international education, and cross-border media.

8. Conclusion

The development of large language models (LLMs) has revolutionized natural language processing, but current architectures remain fundamentally grounded in probabilistic prediction---often at the expense of interpretative depth. This paper introduced CAS-6, a novel framework rooted in Complex Adaptive Systems theory, as a complementary semantic layer designed to address this shortcoming.

CAS-6 decomposes linguistic understanding into six interacting variables---Interaction Level, Interaction Pattern, Interaction Probability, Interaction Weight, Interaction Stability, and Interaction Output---each capturing distinct but interdependent facets of meaning construction. By modeling language not merely as sequence prediction, but as a dynamic system of semantic resonance and weighted interactions, CAS-6 offers a structured pathway to represent and interpret implicit, metaphorical, and artistic meanings often missed by conventional models.

Through qualitative examples, conceptual diagrams, and proposed implementations, we have outlined how CAS-6 can be embedded within or alongside LLMs to support:

Enhanced sensitivity to idioms, metaphors, and culturally embedded semantics.
Co-creative engagements with users in domains such as literature, education, and cross-cultural communication.
A more human-aligned AI interpretative model, capable of operating with semantic depth, rather than statistical surface resemblance alone.
Future work includes formalizing the CAS-6 architecture through empirical training regimes, integrating it within modular LLM architectures, and testing it in real-world applications that demand contextual nuance and symbolic fluency.

Ultimately, CAS-6 moves toward an AI that not only generates language but understands its resonance---bridging the gap between computational representation and human meaning.

References

1. Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., ... & Polosukhin, I. (2017).
Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30.
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1706.03762
2. Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019).
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. Proceedings of NAACL-HLT, 4171--4186.
 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1810.04805
3. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980).
Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.
4. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002).
The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities. Basic Books.
5. Steels, L. (2006).
Semiotic Dynamics for Embodied Agents. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(3), 32--38.
 https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2006.54
6. Holland, J. H. (1992).
Complex Adaptive Systems. Daedalus, 121(1), 17--30.
7. Mitchell, M. (2009).
Complexity: A Guided Tour. Oxford University Press.
8. Hofstadter, D. R. (2001).
Analogy as the Core of Cognition. In The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science, 499--538.
9. Bisk, Y., Holtzman, A., Thomason, J., Andreas, J., Bengio, Y., Chai, J., ... & Zettlemoyer, L. (2020).
Experience Grounds Language. Findings of EMNLP, 876--895.
 https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.78
10. McClelland, J. L., Rumelhart, D. E., & PDP Research Group. (1986).
Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition. Volume : Foundations. MIT Press.
11. Choudhury, M., & Deshpande, A. (2021).
Computational Linguistics and the Quest for Meaning: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Communications of the ACM, 64(9), 58--65.
 https://doi.org/10.1145/3469004
12. Smolensky, P., & Legendre, G. (2006).
The Harmonic Mind: From Neural Computation to Optimality-Theoretic Grammar. MIT Press.
13. Floridi, L. (2011).
The Philosophy of Information. Oxford University Press.
14. Boden, M. A. (2006).
 Mind as Machine: A History of Cognitive Science. Oxford University Press.

Appendix I. Experiment Protocol

A. Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of the CAS-6 framework in enhancing the interpretive capability of a language model in understanding multi-level semantic structures---including denotative, connotative, idiomatic, and artistic meaning---beyond probabilistic co-occurrence.

B. Materials and Tools

1. Base Language Model:
GPT-style transformer (e.g., GPT-2 or GPT-NeoX) for controlled fine-tuning.
2. Dataset:
A curated corpus of polysemantic phrases and idioms from multiple cultural-linguistic contexts (e.g., English, Indonesian, Hindi).
Examples include:
Tears of a crocodile, eyes of the storm, blood is thicker than water, etc.
Their paraphrases, literal translations, and metaphorical variants.
3. Annotation Interface:
Human evaluators label interpretations on a 5-point scale of denotative artistic meaning.
Variables logged: perception of semantic coherence, cultural appropriateness, poetic value.
4. CAS-6 Variable Embedding Module:
Engineered layer that injects CAS-6 dimensions during training:
Interaction Level
Pattern (permutation/ordering/topology)
Probability (co-occurrence baseline)
Weight (annotated or inferred)
Stability (resonance across samples or model outputs)
Output (generated interpretation)
C. Procedures

1. Data Preparation

Select 100--500 phrase triplets involving 3 base lexical items (e.g., tears, eyes, crocodile).
Construct all permutations up to Level-3 interaction.
Annotate each permutation with:
Conventional semantic type (denotative/connotative/metaphorical/artistic)
Contextual polarity and cultural markers (optional)
2. Model Fine-Tuning

Fine-tune baseline LLM on the annotated dataset in two branches:
Branch A (Baseline): Standard LLM fine-tuning (no CAS-6 signals)
Branch B (CAS-6 Augmented): Fine-tuning with CAS-6 vector injected into hidden representations or output conditioning.
3. Evaluation Protocol

Provide both branches with the same input prompts.
Collect model outputs for:
Phrase completion
Interpretation (instructed to "explain the meaning")
Contextual paraphrasing
Use human raters (blind to branch) to score:
Accuracy of interpretation
Depth of meaning (implicit/metaphoric detection)
Cultural appropriateness
Artistic/aesthetic quality
Additionally compute automatic metrics:
Semantic similarity (BERTScore, BLEURT)
Creativity/novelty (n-gram novelty)
CAS-6 variable traceability (if exposed)
D. Hypotheses

1. The CAS-6-augmented model will generate more semantically resonant and culturally grounded interpretations.
2. Outputs will show greater variation in connotative and artistic registers, indicating flexibility beyond literal prediction.
3. The CAS-6 injection will make model predictions more stable across paraphrased inputs and cross-cultural variations.
E. Analysis Plan

Statistical tests:
Mann--Whitney U test or t-test between Branch A and B human evaluation scores.
Correlation between CAS-6 weights and rated interpretive depth.
Qualitative analysis:
Case studies of key phrases illustrating success or failure in interpretive richness.
F. Reproducibility and Ethics

Datasets, annotations, and code will be open-sourced under CC BY-NC-SA.
Human annotators are compensated and instructed with clear guidelines to reduce bias.
No personally identifiable information is used.

Appendix II. Model Architecture Diagram

Overview

The architecture is based on a standard transformer decoder (e.g., GPT-style), with an auxiliary CAS-6 Interpretive Layer injected between the final transformer block and the language modeling head. This layer allows the model to modulate its output based not only on next-token probability but also on six semantically-rich interaction parameters.

A. CAS-6 Enhanced LLM Architecture

                  INPUT TOKENS                        

      ("crocodile", "tears", "eyes")                

                         

                         

            TOKEN EMBEDDING + POSITIONAL ENCODING    

                         

                         

                TRANSFORMER BLOCKS (n layers)        

                         

                         

              CAS-6 INTERPRETIVE LAYER                

                                                     

  Inputs from prior layers: Hidden States            

  Inputs from metadata:                              

  - Interaction Level (1--n)                          

  - Pattern (token order/topology)                    

  - Probability (contextual frequency, PMI)          

  - Weight (inhibitive-synergistic, -2 to +2)        

  - Stability (semantic resonance, entropy drop)      

  - Output Type (literal, idiomatic, metaphoric)      

                                                     

  Projects to a CAS-6 vector embedding              

  Modulates hidden state via attention gating      

                         

                         

              LANGUAGE MODELING HEAD (Softmax)        

                         

                         

                     OUTPUT TOKEN                    

        ("That's crocodile tears, not sorrow.")      

B. Notes on CAS-6 Interpretive Layer Functionality

1. Embedding Injection
CAS-6 variables are embedded into a continuous vector and fused with transformer hidden states via:
Attention biasing (e.g., additional keys/values)
Cross-attention from latent CAS-6 nodes
Residual modulation (e.g., FiLM-style gating)
2. Training Objective
Dual-loss:
Standard cross-entropy for next-token prediction.
Auxiliary loss for semantic alignment: either contrastive (against wrong interpretations) or alignment (with human-annotated CAS-6 representations).
3. Output Conditioning
 CAS-6 Output Type can condition decoder outputs:
e.g., shift toward poetic/metaphoric phrasing when Output = "artistic"
4. Cross-Cultural Adaptability
The layer supports cultural embeddings (region, language, idiom base) to modulate meaning toward culturally appropriate interpretations.
C. Scalability & Compatibility

Plug-and-play for pre-trained transformer models.
Can be trained from scratch or fine-tuned as an adapter module.
Modular: CAS-6 layer can be turned off to revert to baseline probabilistic inference.

Appendix III. Annotated Dataset Scheme

To enable training and evaluation of the CAS-6-enhanced language model, we propose a semiotically enriched, multi-layered dataset with annotations specifically tailored to represent the six CAS-6 dimensions. This appendix outlines the annotation schema and structural organization of the dataset.

A. Dataset Structure

Each data entry (a phrase, idiom, or sentence) consists of the following annotated components:

B. Sample Entry (English)

{

  "id": "sample_101",

  "text_input": "crocodile tears",

  "tokens": ["crocodile", "tears"],

  "interaction_level": 2,

  "interaction_pattern": "linear",

  "interaction_weight": 1.8,

  "interaction_probability": 0.67,

  "interaction_stability": 0.93,

  "interaction_output": "idiomatic",

  "cultural_context": "Anglo-American",

  "explanation": "'Crocodile tears' refers to an insincere display of emotion, often used to mock someone pretending to be sad. The phrase metaphorically combines the image of crocodiles (predators) with tears (emotion), creating a culturally specific idiom."

}

C. Annotation Guidelines

1. Interaction Weight
 Based on human-labeled agreement and metaphorical cohesion:
+2: Deep synergy (e.g., idioms like "cold war")
0: Neutral relation
2: Conflict in semantic co-occurrence
Interaction Stability
Computed using:
Contextual entropy drop across large corpora
Agreement in interpretive meaning across domains (news, literature, informal speech)
2. Output Type
Determined by human annotators using guidelines for detecting idiomaticity, metaphorical scope, artistic tone, etc.
D. Sources for Raw Data Collection

Idiom dictionaries (e.g., Cambridge, Oxford, Wiktionary idiom collections)
Literary corpora (Project Gutenberg, poetry databases)
Cross-cultural metaphoric databases (e.g., Conceptual Metaphor Project)
Crowdsourced examples (annotated via platforms like Amazon Mechanical Turk or Prodigy)
E. Dataset Format

Stored in JSONL (.jsonl) format for compatibility with modern LLM fine-tuning pipelines.
Metadata versioning to support evolution of annotation schemes.
Optionally linked to multilingual equivalents for comparative cultural semantics.