Probabilistic Programming Languages: Independent Choices and Deterministic Systems
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
Pearl [2000, p. 26] attributes to Laplace [1814] the idea of a probabilistic model as a deterministic system with stochastic inputs. Pearl defines causal models in terms of deterministic systems with stochastic inputs. In this paper, I show how deterministic systems with (independent) probabilistic inputs can also be seen as the basis of modern probabilistic programming languages. Probabilistic programs can be seen as consisting of independent choices (over which there are probability distributions) and deterministic programs that give the consequences of these choices. The work on developing such languages has gone in parallel with the development of causal models, and many of the foundations are remarkably similar. Most of the work in probabilistic programming languages has been in the context of specific languages. This paper abstracts the work on probabilistic programming languages from specific languages and explains some design choices in the design of these languages. Probabilistic programming languages have a rich history starting from the use of simulation languages such as Simula [Dahl and Nygaard 1966]. Simula was designed
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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