Extending the Entropic Potential of Events for Uncertainty Quantification and Decision-Making in Artificial Intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work demonstrates how the concept of the entropic potential of events—a parameter quantifying the influence of discrete events on the expected future entropy of a system can enhance uncertainty quantification, decision-making, and interpretability in artificial intelligence (AI). Building on its original formulation in physics, the framework is adapted for AI by introducing an event-centric measure that captures how actions, observations, or other discrete occurrences impact uncertainty at future time horizons. Both the original and AI-adjusted definitions of entropic potential are formalized, with the latter emphasizing conditional expectations to account for counterfactual scenarios. Applications are explored in policy evaluation, intrinsic reward design, explainable AI, and anomaly detection, highlighting the metric’s potential to unify and strengthen uncertainty modeling in intelligent systems. Conceptual examples illustrate its use in reinforcement learning, Bayesian inference, and anomaly detection, while practical considerations for computation in complex AI models are discussed. The entropic potential framework offers a theoretically grounded, interpretable, and versatile approach to managing uncertainty in AI, bridging principles from thermodynamics, information theory, and machine learning.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".