Some Criticisms of the Logical Induction paper link by Tarn Somervell Fletcher 447 days ago | Alex Mennen, Sam Eisenstat and Scott Garrabrant like this | 10 comments

 by Vadim Kosoy 440 days ago | Patrick LaVictoire and Scott Garrabrant like this | link The substance of this criticism mostly reduces to “all results proven are only asymptotic.” This is not very useful criticism. Yes, the results are asymptotic, but this is true for half of theoretical computer science: complexity theory, statistical learning theory, you name it… The LI is obviously not a practical algorithm, but it is not supposed to be a practical algorithm. What it’s supposed to be, IMO, is an existence proof that certain (asymptotic!) desiderata can be satisfied. To make an analogy, the fundumental theorem of statistical learning theory tells us that the ERM principle is guaranteed to converge to the right answer whenever the VC dimension is finite. Now, if we want to make few domain-specific assumptions, we want to take a hypothesis space as large as possible and, voila, feed-forward NNs have a finite VC dimension but also allow approximating any Boolean circuit of given size, so, like in Solomonoff induction, we can approximate anything computable. On the other hand, applying the ERM principle to NNs is NP-hard, so we do gradient descend instead and nobody knows why it works. If we live long enough, I believe we will eventually find a mathematical characterization for a large natural class of problems where gradient descent for ANNs provably approximates the global optimum. Similarly, Solomonoff induction and the LI (in the abstract setting, not necessarily in the formal logic setting) should also have efficient analogues that work for some large natural class of problems. We don’t know these analogues yet (which is probably a good thing), but this doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Finally, the notion that “LIA is like an author-bot which generates all possible character strings in some arbitrary order” misses the point that we expect traders with low description complexity to be more useful for the usual Occam’s razor reason. So, to sum up, yes, the LI paper doesn’t solve all problems in the world, but neither does it pretend to do it, and it seems a decent result by any realistic standard. reply
 by Vladimir Slepnev 440 days ago | Patrick LaVictoire likes this | link Yeah. An asymptotic thing like Solomonoff induction can still have all sorts of mathematical goodness, like multiple surprisingly equivalent definitions, uniqueness/optimality properties, etc. It doesn’t have to be immediately practical to be worth studying. I hope LI can also end up like that. reply
 by Alex Mennen 439 days ago | Abram Demski likes this | link I think the asymptotic nature of LI is much more worrying than the things you compare it to. In order for an asymptotic result to be encouraging for practical applications, we need it to be an asymptotic result such that in most cases of interest when it holds, you tend to also have good finite results. If you give a $$O(n^{12})$$ algorithm for some problem, this is an encouraging sign that maybe you can develop a practical algorithm. But if a problem is known not to be in $$P$$, and then you give an exponential-time algorithm for it, and argue that it can probably be solved efficiently in practice because you’ve established an asymptotic bound, then no one will take this claim very seriously. It seems to me that this is roughly the position logical induction is in, but lifted from efficiency all the way up to computability. The probabilities given by logical induction converge to coherent probabilities, but there is no computable function that will tell you how long you have to run logical induction to know the eventual probability of a certain sentence within a certain precision. We know logical induction doesn’t do this because it cannot be done; if it could be, then there would be a computable set containing all provable sentences and no disprovable sentences (since every sentence would eventually be shown either not to have probability 0 or not to have probability 1), but there is no such computable set. So we know for sure that in the naive sense, there is no way, even in principle, to run logical induction long enough that you have probabilities you can trust to be reasonably accurate. Maybe a better complexity theory analogy would be if you give a $$PP$$ algorithm for a problem known not to be in $$BPP$$ (although there would need to be exciting advancements in complexity theory before that could happen); this gives good reasons to believe that improvements to the algorithm would make it practical to run, and if you run it enough times the majority vote will probably be correct, but it will never be practical to run it enough times for that to happen. Likewise, efficient approximations to logical induction should be able to complete each step in a reasonable amount of time, but will not be able to complete enough steps to give you accurate probabilities. In order to take the probabilities given by logical induction at very large finite steps seriously, you would need effective asymptotic results, and since this cannot be done for the probabilities converging to coherent probabilities, there would need to be subtler senses in which the probabilities given at finite times can be taken seriously even if they are not close to the limiting probabilities. Now, the logical induction paper does give interesting subtler senses in which the probabilities given by logical induction can be taken seriously before they approach their limiting values, but the fundamental problem is that all of those results say that some pattern will eventually hold, for the same sense of “eventually” in which the probabilities eventually converge to coherent probabilities, so this does not give strong evidence that those desirable patterns can be made to emerge in any reasonable amount of time. reply
 by Vadim Kosoy 439 days ago | Alex Mennen likes this | link Alex, the difference between your point of view and my own, is that I don’t care that much about the applications of LI to formal logic. I’m much more interested in its applications to forecasting. If the author is worried about the same issues as you, IMO it is not very clear from ’eir essay. On the other hand, the original paper doesn’t talk much about applications outside of formal logic, and my countercriticism might be slightly unfair since it’s grounded in a perspective that the author doesn’t know about. reply
 by Tarn Somervell Fletcher 439 days ago | link Clarification: I’m not the author of the linked post, I’m just linking it here on behalf of the author (who objects to signing up for things with facebook). I found the most interesting part to be the observation about pointwise convergence - because the LI framework proves its results pointwise, it cannot guarantee that each result which is proved about P_infty will obtain for any finite time n; see also his example about preemptive learning, where for an infinite set of e.c sequences, there may be no finite n that works for all of the set. reply
 by Vadim Kosoy 439 days ago | link Replying to “240” First, yes, the convergence property is not uniform, but it neither should nor can be uniform. This is completely analogous to usual Bayesian inference where the speed of convergence depends on the probability of the correct hypothesis within the prior, or to the Structural Risk Minimization principle in PAC learning. This is unavoidable: if two models only start to differ at a very late point in time, there no way to distinguish between them before this point. In particular, human brains have the same limitation: it would take you more time to notice a complex pattern than a simple pattern. Second, of course we can and should work on results about convergence rates, it is just that there is only that much ground you can reasonably cover in one paper. For example, the classical paper on merging of opinions by Blackwell and Dubins also doesn’t analyze convergence rates, and nevertheless it has 500+ citations. To make one concrete guess, if we consider a sequence of observations in $$\{0,1\}$$ and look at the deviation between the probability the incomplete model forecaster assigns to the next observation and the probability interval that follows from a given correct incomplete model, then I expect to have some sort of cumulative bound on these deviations analogous to standard regret bounds in online learning. Of course the bound will include some parameter related to the “prior probability” $$\xi(k)$$. Third, the only reason the sum in equation (31) is finite is because I wanted to state Theorem 2 in greater generality, without requiring the gamblers to be bounded. However, the gamblers that I actually use (see section 5) are bounded, so for this purpose I might as well have taken an infinite sum over all gamblers. reply
 by Vadim Kosoy 438 days ago | link Replying to 240 (I can’t reply directly because of some quirk of the forum). (I’m not sure that I know your name, is it Robert?) I’m actually not interested in discussing the verbal arguments in the paper. Who reads the verbal arguments anyway? I go straight for the equations ;) The verbal arguments might or might not misrepresent the results, I don’t care either way. I am interested in discussing the mathematical content of the LI paper and whether LI is a valuable mathematical discovery. I agree that there is a relevant sense in which the dominance property in itself is too weak. The way I see it, LI (more generally, dominant forecasting, since I don’t care much about the application to formal logic in particular) is a generalization of Bayesian inference, and the dominance property is roughly analogous to merging of opinions (in my paper there is a more precise analogy, but it doesn’t matter). In the Bayesian case, we can also say that merging of opinions is a too weak property in itself. However: Proving this weak property is already non-trivial, so it is a valuable and necessary step towards proving stronger properties. Besides the property, we have an actual construction and I expect this construction to have stronger properties (even though I don’t expect it to be a practical algorithm), like Bayesian inference has stronger properties than just merging of opinions. Now, nobody currently has a proof of stronger properties or even a formulation (I think), but IMO this is not a reason to disregard all work done so far. Rome wasn’t built in a day :) reply
 by Vadim Kosoy 438 days ago | Alex Appel likes this | link Replying to Rob. Actually, I do know a stronger property of LI / dominant forecasting. In the notation of my paper, we have the following: Let $$\{G^k\}$$ be a family of gamblers, $$\xi,\zeta$$ probability distributions supported on $$\mathbb{N}$$. Then, there exists a forecaster $$F$$ s.t. for any $$k,m,b \in \mathbb{N}$$ ($$b > 0$$) and $$x \in \mathcal{O}^\omega$$, if the first condition holds then the second condition holds: $\inf_{n \leq m} {\operatorname{\Sigma V}_\min G^{kF}_{n}(x_{:n-1})} > -b$ $\sup_{n \leq m} {\operatorname{\Sigma V}_\max G^{kF}_{n}(x_{:n-1})} \leq \frac{\sum_{j,c} \xi(j) \zeta(c) c}{\xi(k)\sum_{c > b} \zeta(c)}$ The above is not hard to see from the proof of Theorem 2, if you keep track of the finite terms. Now, this is not really a bound on the time of convergence, it is something like a bound on the number of mistakes made, which is completely analogous to standard guarantees in online learning. If you’re running LIA and stop enumerating traders at $$N$$, you will get the same dominance property, only for traders up to $$N$$. The fact that VC dimension is non-decreasing for a family of nested classes is a tautology. There is nothing special about the order of the hypotheses in SRM: the order (and weighting) of hypotheses is external information that reflects your prior about the correct hypothesis. Similarly, in LIA we can order the traders by description complexity, same as in Solomonoff induction, because we expect simpler patterns to be more important than complex patterns. This is nothing but the usual Occam’s razor. Or, we can consider more specialized dominant forecasting, with gamblers and ordering selected according to domain-specific considerations. reply
 by Vadim Kosoy 436 days ago | link Replying to Rob. I don’t think that stopping at $$N$$ does some kind of “disproportionate” damage to the LI. For example, Theorem 4.2.1 in the LI paper requires one trader per each $$\epsilon > 0$$ and sequence of theorems. If this trader is in the selection, then the probabilities of the theorems will converge to 1 within $$\epsilon$$. Similarly, in my paper you need the gambler $$\Gamma S^{Mk}$$ to ensure your forecaster converges to incomplete model $$M$$ within $$1/k$$. You can do SRM for any sequence of nested classes of finite VC dimension. For example, if you have a countable set of hypotheses $$\{h_n\}$$, you can take classes to be $$H_n:=\{h_m\}_{m < n}$$. This is just as arbitrary as in LI. The thing is, the error bound that SRM satisfies depends on the actual class in which the reference hypothesis lies. So, compared to a hypothesis in a very high class, SRM can converge very slowly (require very large sample size). This is completely analogous to the inequality I gave before, where $$\xi(k)$$ appears in the denominator of the bound, so gamblers that are “far away” in the “prior” can win a lot of bets before the forecaster catches up. SRM is useful iff you a priori expect “low” hypotheses to be good approximations. For example, suppose you want to fit a polynomial to some data but you don’t know what degree to use. SRM gives you a rule that determines the degree automatically, from the data itself. However, the reason this rule has good performance is because we expect most functions in the real world to be relatively “smooth” and therefore well-approximable by a low degree polynomial. Ordering by description complexity is perfectly computable in itself, it just means that we fix a UTM, represent traders by programs (on which we impose a time bound, otherwise it really is uncomputable), and weight each trader by 2^{-program length}. It would be interesting to find some good property this thing has. If we don’t impose a time bound (so we are uncomputable), then the Bayesian analogue is Solomonoff induction, which has the nice property that it only “weakly” depends on the choice of UTM. Will different UTMs gives “similar” LIs? Off the top of my head, I have no idea! When we add the time bound it gets more messy since time is affected by translation between UTMs, so I’m not sure how to formulate an “invariance” property even in the Bayesian case. Looking through Schmidhuber’s paper on the speed prior, I see ey do have some kind of invariance (section 4) but I’m too lazy to understand the details right now. reply
 by Sam Eisenstat 424 days ago | link A few thoughts: I agree that the LI criterion is “pointwise” in the way that you describe, but I think that this is both pretty good and as much as could actually be asked. A single efficiently computable trader can do a lot. It can enforce coherence on a polynomially growing set of sentences, search for proofs using many different proof strategies, enforce a polynomially growing set of statistical patterns, enforce reflection properties on a polynomially large set of sentences, etc. So, eventually the market will not be exploitable on all these things simultaneously, which seems like a pretty good level of accurate beliefs to have. On the other side of things, it would be far to strong to ask for a uniform bound of the form “for every $$\varepsilon > 0$$, there is some day $$t$$ such that after step $$t$$, no trader can multiply its wealth by a factor more than $$1 + \varepsilon$$”. This is because a trader can be hardcoded with arbitrarily many hard-to-compute facts. For every $$\delta$$, there must eventually be a day $$t' > t$$ on which the belief of your logical inductor assign probability less than $$\delta$$ to some true statement, at which point a trader who has that statement hardcoded can multiply its wealth by $$1/\delta$$. (I can give a construction of such a sentence using self-reference if you want, but it’s also intuitively natural - just pick many mutually exclusive statements with nothing to break the symmetry.) Thus, I wouldn’t think of traders as “mistakes”, as you do in the post. A trader can gain money on the market if the market doesn’t already know all facts that will be listed by the deductive process, but that is a very high bar. Doing well against finitely many traders is already “pretty good”. What you can ask for regarding uniformity is for some simple function $$f$$ such that any trader $$T$$ can multiply its wealth by at most a factor $$f(T)$$. This is basically the idea of the mistake bound model in learning theory; you bound how many mistakes happen rather than when they happen. This would let you say a more than the one-trader properties I mentioned in my first paragraph. In fact, $$\tt{LIA}$$ has this propery; $$f(T)$$ is just the initial wealth of the trader. You may therefore want to do something like setting traders’ initial wealths according to some measure of complexity. Admittedly this isn’t made explicit in the paper, but there’s not much additional that needs to be done to think in this way; it’s just the combination of the individual proofs in the paper with the explicit bounds you get from the initial wealths of the traders involved. I basically agree completely on your last few points. The traders are a model class, not an ensemble method in any substantive way, and it is just confusing to connect them to the papers on ensemble methods that the LI paper references. Also, while I use the idea of logical induction to do research that I hope will be relevant to practical algorithms, it seems unlikely than any practical algorithm will look much like a LI. For one thing, finding fixed points is really hard without some property stronger than continuity, and you’d need a pretty good reason to put it in the inner loop of anything. reply

### NEW DISCUSSION POSTS

There should be a chat icon
 by Alex Mennen on Meta: IAFF vs LessWrong | 0 likes

Apparently "You must be
 by Jessica Taylor on Meta: IAFF vs LessWrong | 1 like

There is a replacement for
 by Alex Mennen on Meta: IAFF vs LessWrong | 1 like

Regarding the physical
 by Vadim Kosoy on The Learning-Theoretic AI Alignment Research Agend... | 0 likes

I think that we should expect
 by Vadim Kosoy on The Learning-Theoretic AI Alignment Research Agend... | 0 likes

I think I understand your
 by Jessica Taylor on The Learning-Theoretic AI Alignment Research Agend... | 0 likes

This seems like a hack. The
 by Jessica Taylor on The Learning-Theoretic AI Alignment Research Agend... | 0 likes

After thinking some more,
 by Vadim Kosoy on The Learning-Theoretic AI Alignment Research Agend... | 0 likes

Yes, I think that we're
 by Vadim Kosoy on The Learning-Theoretic AI Alignment Research Agend... | 0 likes

My intuition is that it must
 by Vadim Kosoy on The Learning-Theoretic AI Alignment Research Agend... | 0 likes

To first approximation, a
 by Vadim Kosoy on The Learning-Theoretic AI Alignment Research Agend... | 0 likes

Actually, I *am* including
 by Vadim Kosoy on The Learning-Theoretic AI Alignment Research Agend... | 0 likes

Yeah, when I went back and
 by Alex Appel on Optimal and Causal Counterfactual Worlds | 0 likes

> Well, we could give up on
 by Jessica Taylor on The Learning-Theoretic AI Alignment Research Agend... | 0 likes

> For another thing, consider
 by Jessica Taylor on The Learning-Theoretic AI Alignment Research Agend... | 0 likes