Similarity Field Theory: A Mathematical Framework for Intelligence

Use this page to decide whether the paper is strong enough to influence an eval design. It summarizes the abstract plus available structured metadata. If the signal is thin, use it as background context and compare it against stronger hub pages before making protocol choices.

Abstract

We posit that transforming similarity relations form the structural basis of comprehensible dynamic systems. This paper introduces Similarity Field Theory, a mathematical framework that formalizes the principles governing similarity values among entities and their evolution. We define: (1) a similarity field $S: U \times U \to [0,1]$ over a universe of entities $U$, satisfying reflexivity $S(E,E)=1$ and treated as a directed relational field (asymmetry and non-transitivity are allowed); (2) the evolution of a system through a sequence $Z_p=(X_p,S^{(p)})$ indexed by $p=0,1,2,\ldots$; (3) concepts $K$ as entities that induce fibers $F_α(K)={E\in U \mid S(E,K)\ge α}$, i.e., superlevel sets of the unary map $S_K(E):=S(E,K)$; and (4) a generative operator $G$ that produces new entities. Within this framework, we formalize a generative definition of intelligence: an operator $G$ is intelligent with respect to a concept $K$ if, given a system containing entities belonging to the fiber of $K$, it generates new entities that also belong to that fiber. Similarity Field Theory thus offers a foundational language for characterizing, comparing, and constructing intelligent systems. At a high level, this framework reframes intelligence and interpretability as geometric problems on similarity fields--preserving and composing level-set fibers--rather than statistical ones. We prove two theorems: (i) asymmetry blocks mutual inclusion; and (ii) stability implies either an anchor coordinate or asymptotic confinement to the target level (up to arbitrarily small tolerance). Together, these results constrain similarity-field evolution and motivate an interpretive lens applicable to large language models. AI systems may be aligned less to safety as such than to human-observable and human-interpretable conceptions of safety, which may not fully determine the underlying safety concept.