Knowledge Equivalence in Combined Action Theories.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate the relationship between two accounts of knowledge and action in the situation calculus: the Scherl and Levesque (SL) approach that models knowledge with possible worlds, and the Demolombe and Pozos Parra (DP) approach that models knowledge by a set of "knowledge fluents." We construct combined action theories: basic action theories that encode a correspondence between an SL and a DP theory. We prove, subject to certain restrictions, that knowledge of fluent literals are provably the same after a sequence of actions. Moreover, this knowledge equivalence extends to a rich class of formulae. These results allow us to translate certain SL theories into equivalent DP theories that avoid the computational drawbacks of possible world reasoning. They also enable us to prove the correctness of the DP treatment of knowledge and action in terms of a possible world specification.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it