Semantic similarity as multiplicative factor in retrieval
Multiplicative Semantic CMR incorporates semantic associations through multiplication rather than addition. Semantic similarity acts as a gating factor that modulates temporal context support, inspired by optimal foraging models of memory search.
In Multiplicative Semantic CMR: \[a_i = (a^{temp}_i)^\tau \times (a^{sem}_i)^s\]
The semantic term multiplies the temporal activation, acting as a gate or filter.
Why Multiplicative?
The multiplicative model reflects a foraging-inspired view of memory search:
Patch quality (temporal context) determines baseline support
Local similarity (semantic) modulates exploration within a patch
High semantic similarity keeps you in a “semantic neighborhood”
Low similarity encourages jumping to new regions
This captures the idea that you search within semantic clusters before switching.
Mathematical Specification
Retrieval Activations
Code
def activations(self):# Temporal support from MCF base_support =self.mcf.probe(self.context.state) *self.recallable# Semantic support from last recalled itemifself.recall_total ==0: semantic_support = ones # Neutral multiplierelse: last_item =self.recalls[self.recall_total -1] -1 semantic_support =self.msem[last_item] *self.recallable# Scale each separately, then multiply scaled_temporal = power_scale(base_support, self.mcf_sensitivity) scaled_semantic = power_scale(semantic_support, self.semantic_scale)return (scaled_temporal * scaled_semantic) *self.recallable
The key: scale separately, then multiply. This means: - Each factor undergoes its own winner-take-all sharpening - An item needs support from both sources to have high activation - Zero in either factor → zero combined activation
Parameters
Parameter
Symbol
Description
semantic_scale
\(s\)
Exponent for semantic similarity
choice_sensitivity
\(\tau\)
Exponent for temporal support
The Semantic Scale (as Exponent)
In the multiplicative model, semantic_scale acts as an exponent:
Value
Effect
0.0
Semantic term = 1 (pure temporal)
0.5
Gentle semantic gating
1.0
Linear semantic influence
>1.0
Strong semantic gating (winner-take-all)
Higher values make the model more sensitive to semantic similarity differences.
The multiplicative model predicts: - Strong clustering within semantic categories - Abrupt transitions between categories (when semantic support depletes) - Temporal transitions gated by semantic relevance
Foraging Patterns
Following Hills et al. (2012), the model predicts behavior similar to animal foraging: - Exploit: Stay in a semantic “patch” while resources remain - Explore: Switch patches when local resources deplete - Transitions follow semantic gradients within patches
Comparison: Additive vs Multiplicative
Behavior
Additive
Multiplicative
Zero semantic
Temporal alone
Zero activation
High temp, low sem
Moderate activation
Low activation
Low temp, high sem
Moderate activation
Low activation
Category transitions
Gradual
Abrupt
Semantic clustering
Moderate
Strong
Key Difference
Additive: Semantic and temporal provide independent “votes”—each can succeed alone.
Multiplicative: Semantic gates temporal—you need both to have high activation.
First Recall (No Prior Item)
At the first recall, there’s no “last recalled item” to provide semantic similarity. The model handles this by setting semantic support to ones (neutral multiplier):
Code
semantic_support = lax.cond(self.recall_total ==0,lambda: jnp.ones_like(base_support), # First recall: no semantic filterlambda: self.msem[self.recalls[self.recall_total -1] -1],)
This means the first recall is purely temporal (recency/primacy driven), and semantic effects emerge only after the first item.
Theoretical Background
This model draws from:
Hills, Jones & Todd (2012): Optimal foraging in semantic memory
Search of Associative Memory (SAM): Multiplicative cue combination
Random walk models: Semantic space as a landscape
The foraging metaphor suggests that memory search optimizes a tradeoff between exploitation (staying in a productive area) and exploration (moving to new areas).
References
Hills, T. T., Jones, M. N., & Todd, P. M. (2012). Optimal foraging in semantic memory. Psychological Review, 119(2), 431-440.
Raaijmakers, J. G., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1981). Search of associative memory. Psychological Review, 88(2), 93-134.