arXiv:2606. 12471v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Klindt, LeCun, and Balestriero (arXiv:2605.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.
arXiv:2606. 10934v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A common assumption holds that enough observational and interventional data, given to a strong enough predictor, suffices.
The paper introduces a framework that distinguishes world models by the channel they represent—environment, agent, or joint agent‑environment—using computational mechanics to define canonical predictive models as ε-transducers or ε-machines. It shows how closed‑loop coupling induces support‑restricted models whose states factor through the joint causal states, and demonstrates with a POMDP example that such restriction can reduce an otherwise infinite‑state environment model to a finite one.
The paper argues that Large Language Models (LLMs) do not function as Solomonoff induction estimators because their training objectives—cross‑entropy, negative log‑likelihood, and next‑token prediction—optimize fit to a supplied conditional distribution rather than a program‑weighted universal mixture. It further contends that additional computation alone does not transform these models into optimal predictors without external hyper‑parameter or architectural changes. The authors suggest that neurosymbolic machine learning, exemplified by models such as Fable and Astra, represents a shift toward symbolic model synthesis, moving beyond purely statistical LLMs.
arXiv:2603. 25414v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: A prevailing assumption in machine learning is that model correctness must be enforced after the fact.
arXiv:2601.05280v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: On the one hand, the question of whether Large Language Models (LLMs) are Solomonoff induction estimators has become an explicit question at...
The paper presents an interactive probabilistically checkable proof (PCP) protocol that allows a polynomial‑time verifier to check the approximate consistency of a probabilistic predictor defined by two circuits, P and Q. By evaluating these circuits at a few points and querying a proof oracle that encodes a witnessing probability distribution, the verifier can confirm that the predictor’s many conditional‑probability claims are self‑consistent. The authors also establish that the problem of verifying l₂‑approximate consistency for explicit probabilistic claims lies in NP, with certificates of size O(mn + log B), and show how to eliminate dependence on the input bit‑precision B through a small additive gap.