analiza aiqbench
This research introduces a model-agnostic framework that determines when to update world models by evaluating whether a proposed state change actually reduces downstream loss, rather than relying solely on predictive accuracy. By formalizing "state movability" and using confidence bounds on independent calibration units, the method ensures that accepted updates statistically outperform persistence across diverse forecasting benchmarks. The findings highlight a critical distinction between event predictability and the safety of executing state changes, offering a rigorous approach to managing uncertainty in dynamic systems.
When Should a World Model Move? Loss-Conditioned State Execution
arXiv:2609.15801v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We introduce loss-conditioned state execution, a model-agnostic method that decides whether to execute a world model's fixed feasible proposal or retain the current state. Predictive informativeness alone, however, does not establish whether an update will reduce downstream loss. Occurrence ranking can approach perfection while persistence remains the unique absolute-loss Bayes action. Two transition laws can also share occurrence information and conditional variance yet require opposite absolute-loss decisions. We formalize state movability as the existence of a loss-reducing feasible correction and distinguish it from the benefit of a particular proposal. Our method constructs a loss-specific feasible proposal from a predictive distribution and evaluates its groupwise bounded-loss gain over persistence on independent calibration units. The proposal is executed only in groups with a positive simultaneous lower confidence bound. For fixed proposals and groups with bounded unit losses, we prove that every accepted group has lower expected loss than persistence with high probability when calibration units are i.i.d. draws from the target population. Experiments on public forecasting and action-conditioned dynamics benchmarks show supported updates and a trade-off between certification and coverage. On 28,684 held-out M4 Monthly series, the method executes the proposal for 14.0% of series and achieves bounded loss 0.588, compared with 0.599 for persistence and 0.621 for always executing the proposal. The paired 95% bootstrap intervals for both comparisons lie below zero. In constrained forecasting of six unhealthy-inventory types from JD$\mbox{.}$com, a leading e-retailer in China, strong occurrence-ranking signal coexists with a loss-based preference for persistence, illustrating why event predictability and state execution must be evaluated separately.
Title:When Should a World Model Move? Loss-Conditioned State Execution
Abstract:We introduce loss-conditioned state execution, a model-agnostic method that decides whether to execute a world model's fixed feasible proposal or retain the current state. Predictive informativeness alone, however, does not establish whether an update will reduce downstream loss. Occurrence ranking can approach perfection while persistence remains the unique absolute-loss Bayes action. Two transition laws can also share occurrence information and conditional variance yet require opposite absolute-loss decisions. We formalize state movability as the existence of a loss-reducing feasible correction and distinguish it from the benefit of a particular proposal. Our method constructs a loss-specific feasible proposal from a predictive distribution and evaluates its groupwise bounded-loss gain over persistence on independent calibration units. The proposal is executed only in groups with a positive simultaneous lower confidence bound. For fixed proposals and groups with bounded unit losses, we prove that every accepted group has lower expected loss than persistence with high probability when calibration units are i.i.d. draws from the target population. Experiments on public forecasting and action-conditioned dynamics benchmarks show supported updates and a trade-off between certification and coverage. On 28,684 held-out M4 Monthly series, the method executes the proposal for 14.0% of series and achieves bounded loss 0.588, compared with 0.599 for persistence and 0.621 for always executing the proposal. The paired 95% bootstrap intervals for both comparisons lie below zero. In constrained forecasting of six unhealthy-inventory types from JD$\mbox{.}$com, a leading e-retailer in China, strong occurrence-ranking signal coexists with a loss-based preference for persistence, illustrating why event predictability and state execution must be evaluated separately.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Optimization and Control (math.OC)
arXiv:2609.15801 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.15801v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.15801 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 366 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
Game-Theoretic Disempowerment: Loss of Control to Agencyless AI
LessWrong · 27 sept. 2026
The Entangled Dimensions of Decision Theory
LessWrong · 30 iul. 2026
Problems of Proliferation
LessWrong · 29 sept. 2026
The current bottleneck is political will, not research
AI Alignment Forum · 11 iul. 2026