Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within Reinforcement Learning, there is a growing collection of research which aims to express all of an agent's knowledge of the world through predictions about sensation, behaviour, and time. This work can be seen not only as a collection of architectural proposals, but also as the beginnings of a theory of machine knowledge in reinforcement learning. Recent work has expanded what can be expressed using predictions, and developed applications which use predictions to inform decision-making on a variety of synthetic and real-world problems. While promising, we here suggest that the notion of predictions as knowledge in reinforcement learning is as yet underdeveloped: some work explicitly refers to predictions as knowledge, what the requirements are for considering a prediction to be knowledge have yet to be well explored. This specification of the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge is important; even if claims about the nature of knowledge are left implicit in technical proposals, the underlying assumptions of such claims have consequences for the systems we design. These consequences manifest in both the way we choose to structure predictive knowledge architectures, and how we evaluate them. In this paper, we take a first step to formalizing predictive knowledge by discussing the relationship of predictive knowledge learning methods to existing theories of knowledge in epistemology. Specifically, we explore the relationships between Generalized Value Functions and epistemic notions of Justification and Truth.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".