MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404571120 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.11614

On the physics of nested Markov models: a generalized probabilistic theory perspective

2024· preprint· en· W4404571120 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Xingjian Zhang, Yuhao Wang

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicSimulation Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Colleges and UniversitiesInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Probabilistic logicStatistical physicsMarkov chainMathematicsComputer scienceEconometricsMathematical economicsPhysicsStatisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Determining potential probability distributions with a given causal graph is vital for causality studies. To bypass the difficulty in characterizing latent variables in a Bayesian network, the nested Markov model provides an elegant algebraic approach by listing exactly all the equality constraints on the observed variables. However, this algebraically motivated causal model comprises distributions outside Bayesian networks, and its physical interpretation remains vague. In this work, we inspect the nested Markov model through the lens of generalized probabilistic theory, an axiomatic framework to describe general physical theories. We prove that all the equality constraints defining the nested Markov model are valid theory-independently. At the same time, not every distribution within the nested Markov model is implementable, not even via exotic physical theories associated with generalized probability theories (GPTs). To interpret the origin of such a gap, we study three causal models standing between the nested Markov model and the set of all distributions admitting some GPT realization. Each of the successive three models gives a strictly tighter characterization of the physically implementable distribution set; that is, each successive model manifests new types of GPT-inviolable constraints. We further demonstrate each gap through a specially chosen illustrative causal structure. We anticipate our results will enlighten further explorations on the unification of algebraic and physical perspectives of causality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.489
Threshold uncertainty score0.664

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.260
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.040 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicSimulation Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207