A theory of understanding for artificial intelligence: composability, catalysts, and learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding is a crucial yet elusive concept in artificial intelligence (AI). This work proposes a framework for analyzing understanding based on the notion of composability. Given any subject (e.g., a person or an AI), we suggest characterizing its understanding of an object in terms of its ability to process (compose) relevant inputs into satisfactory outputs from the perspective of a verifier. This highly universal framework can readily apply to non-human subjects, such as AIs, non-human animals, and institutions. Further, we propose methods for analyzing the inputs that enhance output quality in compositions, which we call catalysts. We show how the structure of a subject can be revealed by analyzing its components that act as catalysts and argue that a subject's learning ability can be regarded as its ability to compose inputs into its inner catalysts. Finally we examine the importance of learning ability for AIs to attain general intelligence. Our analysis indicates that models capable of generating outputs that can function as their own catalysts, such as language models, establish a foundation for potentially overcoming existing limitations in AI understanding.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".