An Account of Intensional and Extensional Actions, and its Application to Belief, Nondeterministic Actions and Fallible Sensors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In general, an agent may have incomplete and inaccurate knowledge about its environment. As well, actions may not turn out as intended or may have nondeterministic effects, and sensors may on occasion give incorrect results. We present a general, qualitative approach to reasoning about action and change in such a setting. The approach is expressed as an extension to basic action theories in the situation calculus, where an agent's epistemic state is modelled by a set of situations, where each situation is assigned a non-negative integer representing its plausibility. The agent's epistemic state is updated by modifying these plausibility values after the execution of an action, taking into account the possibility of unexpected results. To this end, we consider actions to have an intensional aspect, under the control of and determined by the agent, and an extensional aspect, not directly accessible to the agent and controlled by "nature". This leads to two distinct but related related notions of belief, an extensional "bird's eye" view which models an agent's beliefs wrt actually-executed actions, and an intensional view representing beliefs from the agent's point of view. We argue that the approach is significantly more general and comprehensive than previous accounts, and leads to a unified view of failed actions and nondeterminism with respect to physical and sensing actions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".