What’s a good prediction? Challenges in evaluating an agent’s knowledge
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
Constructing general knowledge by learning task-independent models of the world can help agents solve challenging problems. However, both constructing and evaluating such models remain an open challenge. The most common approaches to evaluating models is to assess their accuracy with respect to observable values. However, the prevailing reliance on estimator accuracy as a proxy for the usefulness of the knowledge has the potential to lead us astray. We demonstrate the conflict between accuracy and usefulness through a series of illustrative examples including both a thought experiment and an empirical example in Minecraft, using the General Value Function framework (GVF). Having identified challenges in assessing an agent's knowledge, we propose an alternate evaluation approach that arises naturally in the online continual learning setting: we recommend evaluation by examining internal learning processes, specifically the relevance of a GVF's features to the prediction task at hand. This paper contributes a first look into evaluation of predictions through their use, an integral component of predictive knowledge which is as of yet unexplored.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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