HackerPapers

arXiv:1609.03543cs.AI

Logical Induction

Scott Garrabrant, Tsvi Benson-Tilsen, Andrew Critch, Nate Soares, Jessica Taylor

Abstract

We present a computable algorithm that assigns probabilities to every logical statement in a given formal language, and refines those probabilities over time. For instance, if the language is Peano arithmetic, it assigns probabilities to all arithmetical statements, including claims about the twin prime conjecture, the outputs of long-running computations, and its own probabilities. We show that our algorithm, an instance of what we call a logical inductor, satisfies a number of intuitive desiderata, including: (1) it learns to predict patterns of truth and falsehood in logical statements, often long before having the resources to evaluate the statements, so long as the patterns can be written down in polynomial time; (2) it learns to use appropriate statistical summaries to predict sequences of statements whose truth values appear pseudorandom; and (3) it learns to have accurate beliefs about its own current beliefs, in a manner that avoids the standard paradoxes of self-reference. For example, if a given computer program only ever produces outputs in a certain range, a logical inductor learns this fact in a timely manner; and if late digits in the decimal expansion of $π$ are difficult to predict, then a logical inductor learns to assign $\approx 10\%$ probability to "the $n$th digit of $π$ is a 7" for large $n$. Logical inductors also learn to trust their future beliefs more than their current beliefs, and their beliefs are coherent in the limit (whenever $φ\implies ψ$, $\mathbb{P}_\infty(φ) \le \mathbb{P}_\infty(ψ)$, and so on); and logical inductors strictly dominate the universal semimeasure in the limit. These properties and many others all follow from a single logical induction criterion, which is motivated by a series of stock trading analogies. Roughly speaking, each logical sentence $φ$ is associated with a stock that is worth \$1 per share if [...]

arXiv comments
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
cs.AIArtificial Intelligence cs.LOLogic in Computer Science math.LOLogic math.PRProbability

On Hacker News

Linked by 3 identifiable commenters in 4 comments across 4 threads, from Jan 2019 to Jul 2026. Found in 1 HN submission from Nov 2017 to Nov 2017. Open submission discussions.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments4 threads

    • For context: Logical Induction https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.03543 Sadly the line of research seems to have been abandoned. Kind of understandable with the ascent of LLMs: there is no time left for a multi-decade research program.

      FeepingCreatureView on HNParent context

  1. AlphaProof's Greatest Hits 1 comment
    • Probabilistic reasoning is possible in a formal setting; It produces a probability distribution over answers. To ground probabilistic logic itself I'm not aware of much progress beyond the initial idea of logical induction[0]. [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.03543

      benlivengoodView on HNParent context

  2. The New XOR Problem 1 comment
    • I think that Penrose basically thinks it's useful that humans can heuristically step up from a logic system S to S+"statement X is true" in an almost-grounded way, but in reality we are all actually constrained by Godel, Tarski, etc. We just trick ourselves into assuming we can…

      benlivengoodView on HNParent context

    • That statement is too strong. The practical effect is that you should not try to build an algorithm to detect infinite loops in general (though you wouldn't need undecidability for this, per se. E.g., NP-completeness of the halting problem would probably have been sufficient to…

      pure-awesomeView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.