Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we present the mathematical foundations of generative machine intelligence and link them with mean-field-type game theory. The key interaction mechanism is self-attention, which exhibits aggregative properties similar to those found in mean-field-type game theory. It is not necessary to have an infinite number of neural units to handle mean-field-type terms. For instance, the variance reduction in error within generative machine intelligence is a mean-field-type problem and does not involve an infinite number of decision-makers. Based on this insight, we construct mean-field-type transformers that operate on data that are not necessarily identically distributed and evolve over several layers using mean-field-type transition kernels. We demonstrate that the outcomes of these mean-field-type transformers correspond exactly to the mean-field-type equilibria of a hierarchical mean-field-type game. Due to the non-convexity of the operators’ composition, gradient-based methods alone are insufficient. To distinguish a global minimum from other extrema—such as local minima, local maxima, global maxima, and saddle points—alternative methods that exploit hidden convexities of anti-derivatives of activation functions are required. We also discuss the integration of blockchain technologies into machine intelligence, facilitating an incentive design loop for all contributors and enabling blockchain token economics for each system participant. This feature is especially relevant to ensuring the integrity of factual data, legislative information, medical records, and scientifically published references that should remain immutable after the application of generative machine intelligence.
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) | 0.002 | 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 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".