Reasoning about “reasoning about reasoning”: semantics and contextual equivalence for probabilistic programs with nested queries and recursion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metareasoning can be achieved in probabilistic programming languages (PPLs) using agent models that recursively nest inference queries inside inference queries. However, the semantics of this powerful, reflection-like language feature has defied an operational treatment, much less reasoning principles for contextual equivalence. We give formal semantics to a core PPL with continuous distributions, scoring, general recursion, and nested queries. Unlike prior work, the presence of nested queries and general recursion makes it impossible to stratify the definition of a sampling-based operational semantics and that of a measure-theoretic semantics—the two semantics must be defined mutually recursively. A key yet challenging property we establish is that probabilistic programs have well-defined meanings: limits exist for the step-indexed measures they induce. Beyond a semantics, we offer relational reasoning principles for probabilistic programs making nested queries. We construct a step-indexed, biorthogonal logical-relations model. A soundness theorem establishes that logical relatedness implies contextual equivalence. We demonstrate the usefulness of the reasoning principles by proving novel equivalences of practical relevance—in particular, game-playing and decisionmaking agents. We mechanize our technical developments leading to the soundness proof using the Coq proof assistant. Nested queries are an important yet theoretically underdeveloped linguistic feature in PPLs; we are first to give them semantics in the presence of general recursion and to provide them with sound reasoning principles for contextual equivalence.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".