MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406464483 · doi:10.1103/physreva.111.016201

Reply to “Comment on ‘Experimentally adjudicating between different causal accounts of Bell-inequality violations via statistical model selection' ”

2025· article· en· W4406464483 on OpenAlexafffund
Patrick Daley, Kevin J. Resch, Robert W. Spekkens

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. A/Physical review, A · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanada First Research Excellence FundCanada Foundation for InnovationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Ministry of Research, Innovation and ScienceGovernment of Canada
KeywordsSelection (genetic algorithm)InequalityBell's theoremBell test experimentsMathematical economicsSelection biasComputer scienceLocal hidden variable theoryEconometricsEconomicsMathematicsArtificial intelligenceStatisticsPhysicsQuantum mechanicsQuantum entanglement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our article described an experiment that adjudicates between different causal accounts of Bell inequality violations by a comparison of their predictive power, finding that certain types of models that are structurally radical but parametrically conservative---of which a class of superdeterministic models are an example---overfit the data relative to models that are structurally conservative but parametrically radical in the sense of endorsing an intrinsically quantum generalization of the framework of causal modeling. In their comment [Phys. Rev. A 109, 026201 (2024)], Hance and Hossenfelder argue that we have misrepresented the purpose of superdeterministic models. We here dispute this claim by recalling the different classes of superdeterministic models we defined in our article and our conclusions regarding which of these are disfavored by our experimental results. Their confusion on this point seems to have arisen in part from the fact that we characterized superdeterministic models within a causal modeling framework and from the fact that we referred to this framework as ``classical'' in order to contrast it with an intrinsically quantum alternative. In this Reply, therefore, we take the opportunity to clarify these points. They also claim that if one is adjudicating between a pair of models, where one model can account for strictly more operational statistics than the other, the first model will tend to overfit the data relative to the second. Because this model inclusion relation can arise for pairs of models in a reductionist hierarchy, they conclude that overfitting should not be taken as evidence against the first model. We point out here that, contrary to this claim, one does not expect overfitting to arise generically in cases of model inclusion, so that it is indeed sometimes appropriate to consider overfitting as a criterion for adjudicating between such models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.013
Scholarly communication0.0050.011
Open science0.0090.005
Research integrity0.0750.061
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.008

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.383 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. A/Physical review, ASame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207