Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 101 references

Toward AI That Understands Self and Others: A World-Model Theory of Cognitive Diversity and Alignment

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-06-29 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Disagreement arises because observations become inferences only after constructing sufficient state representations under constraints.

desk verdict The paper reframes alignment as mutual processability across heterogeneous world models rather than consensus, but the argument stays definitional with no derivations or examples to make the distinction work. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.29930 v2 pith:HVLR3IAX submitted 2026-05-28 cs.AI cs.CYcs.HC

Toru Takahashi This is my paper
classification cs.AIcs.CYcs.HC
keywords worldmodelscognitivediversityAIalignmentmulti-phaseinferenceprocessabilitymapstransformationloss
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper establishes that disagreement in societies is a late-stage phenomenon stemming from how different intelligences build world models from observations under finite constraints. It proposes that alignment in AI should focus on making these heterogeneous world models processable to each other while keeping their unique error-detection abilities intact. This shifts the view from forcing consensus to enabling communication across different inferential frameworks. The approach reconstructs recognition as the construction of approximate sufficient statistics, formalized through the Multi-Phase Inference Assumption and its mechanism.

What carries the argument

The Multi-Phase Inference Mechanism (MIM), which reconstructs recognition by determining admissible targets through construction of state representations approximately sufficient for prediction, evaluation, or action.

What would settle it

An experiment in which two agents given identical sufficient state representations for the same observation sequence still exhibit persistent disagreement on inferences, or conversely where differing representations produce no communication barrier.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Recognition is the construction of approximate sufficient statistics under informational, representational, observational, and action constraints, formalized as the Multi-Phase Inference Assumption (MIA) and Mechanism (MIM). Alignment maps and transformation loss allow analysis of how world models communicate, making alignment processability rather than agreement: the design of AI systems that help heterogeneous forms of intelligence remain mutually processable while preserving their distinct error-detection capacities.

Load-bearing premise

The premise that observation is not yet inference and that a possible target becomes admissible only when a state representation can be constructed that is approximately sufficient for prediction, evaluation, or action with respect to that target.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Heterogeneous world models can communicate without being collapsed into a single representation.
  • AI systems can be designed to preserve distinct error-detection capacities across forms of intelligence.
  • Alignment maps and transformation loss provide tools to quantify and manage communication between models.
  • Disagreement is analyzed as differing admissible targets rather than conflicts of values or beliefs.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The framework could extend to real-time AI interfaces that map between a user's world model and the system's own without requiring the user to adopt the system's representation.
  • It suggests testable designs for multi-agent environments where agents operate under deliberately varied observational constraints to measure processability.
  • Applications might include systems for resolving interpretive conflicts in policy or science by tracking transformation losses between models rather than seeking consensus.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that societal disagreement over facts and events is a late-stage phenomenon because observation is not yet inference; a target becomes admissible only once an approximately sufficient state representation can be constructed for prediction, evaluation, or action. It reconstructs recognition under finite constraints via the Multi-Phase Inference Assumption (MIA) and its internal Multi-Phase Inference Mechanism (MIM), then introduces alignment maps and transformation loss to analyze communication between heterogeneous world models. The central conclusion is that world-model alignment consists in mutual processability rather than representational agreement, enabling AI systems to preserve distinct error-detection capacities across diverse intelligences.

Significance. If the framework were formalized with explicit derivations and operational examples, it could provide a useful conceptual shift in AI alignment research by reframing the goal as maintaining processability across heterogeneous models instead of enforcing consensus. The approach highlights the role of finite constraints in inference and offers a way to think about cognitive diversity without requiring unification. As currently presented, however, the contribution remains at the level of definitional reframing without demonstrated mechanisms or testable implications.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The assertion that 'World-model alignment is therefore processability, not agreement' is presented as following directly from the MIA, MIM, alignment maps, and transformation loss, yet no derivation, formal definition, or worked example is supplied showing how these constructs yield processability independently of representational agreement or how transformation loss quantifies the distinction.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The central premise that 'a possible target becomes admissible only when a state representation can be constructed that is approximately sufficient for prediction, evaluation, or action' is introduced as foundational but is not derived from prior results or contrasted with alternative accounts of inference; this premise directly supports the subsequent claims about MIA/MIM and alignment, making its lack of justification load-bearing for the entire argument.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract is highly compressed; expanding the description of how alignment maps and transformation loss function would improve readability even at the conceptual level.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive report. We address each major comment below, clarifying the logical role of the central constructs and indicating where the manuscript will be revised to improve explicitness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The assertion that 'World-model alignment is therefore processability, not agreement' is presented as following directly from the MIA, MIM, alignment maps, and transformation loss, yet no derivation, formal definition, or worked example is supplied showing how these constructs yield processability independently of representational agreement or how transformation loss quantifies the distinction.

    Authors: The MIA and MIM are defined in Section 2 as the assumption and mechanism governing construction of approximately sufficient statistics under finite constraints. Alignment maps and transformation loss are introduced in Section 3 as the means to quantify mappings that preserve predictive utility without requiring identical representations. Processability follows directly because transformation loss is defined as the residual error after the map is applied, which can be low even when the underlying sufficient statistics differ. We agree that the abstract is too terse; the revised manuscript will include a short derivation sketch relating the definitions to mutual processability and one worked numerical example of two models with distinct constraints communicating via an alignment map. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central premise that 'a possible target becomes admissible only when a state representation can be constructed that is approximately sufficient for prediction, evaluation, or action' is introduced as foundational but is not derived from prior results or contrasted with alternative accounts of inference; this premise directly supports the subsequent claims about MIA/MIM and alignment, making its lack of justification load-bearing for the entire argument.

    Authors: The premise is presented explicitly as the Multi-Phase Inference Assumption (MIA), i.e., an axiomatic starting point rather than a theorem derived from earlier results. It is motivated by the observation that not every datum becomes an estimation target under resource bounds, a point already implicit in bounded-rationality and statistical decision theory. We will revise the introduction to add an explicit contrast with classical accounts that assume unlimited representational capacity or treat all observations as immediately admissible, thereby clarifying why the premise is load-bearing. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity detected; framework is self-contained theoretical proposal.

full rationale

The paper states a central premise (observation is not yet inference; targets admissible only via sufficient state representations), formulates it as the Multi-Phase Inference Assumption (MIA) and Mechanism (MIM), introduces alignment maps and transformation loss, and concludes that alignment equals processability rather than agreement. No equations, fitted parameters, self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes appear in the provided text. The conclusion is presented as following from the introduced terminology and premise without any reduction that makes the output equivalent to the inputs by construction. This matches the default case of a self-contained conceptual framework with no load-bearing circular steps.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 3 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract, the paper introduces several new concepts without external grounding or derivations. The central premise is presented as an assumption rather than derived from prior results.

assumptions (1)
  • ad hoc to paper Multi-Phase Inference Assumption (MIA)
    The paper explicitly formulates its position as this assumption in the abstract.
invented entities (3)
  • Multi-Phase Inference Mechanism (MIM)
    purpose: Core internal mechanism of the framework
    Introduced as the mechanism implementing the Multi-Phase Inference Assumption.
  • alignment maps
    purpose: Analyze communication between heterogeneous world models
    New construct introduced to study processability without collapse.
  • transformation loss
    purpose: Quantify information change in model communication
    New term introduced alongside alignment maps.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Toward AI That Understands Self and Others: A World-Model Theory of Cognitive Diversity and Alignment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HVLR3IAX

@misc{pith2026260529930,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Toward AI That Understands Self and Others: A World-Model Theory of Cognitive Diversity and Alignment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HVLR3IAX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.29930}
}
read the original abstract

Modern societies possess more information than ever before, yet they do not converge toward a single shared understanding. The same events, facts, laws, technologies, or risks can be interpreted as evidence of freedom, danger, exclusion, injustice, responsibility, or unrealized possibility. Existing discussions often treat such disagreement as a conflict of values, preferences, or beliefs. This paper argues that disagreement is already a late-stage phenomenon. The central premise is simple but not trivial: observation is not yet inference. Not every observation becomes inferentially relevant, and not every possible object in an observation sequence becomes an estimation target. A possible target becomes admissible only when a state representation can be constructed that is approximately sufficient for prediction, evaluation, or action with respect to that target. This paper develops a world-model theory of cognitive diversity and alignment by reconstructing recognition as the construction of such approximate sufficient statistics under finite informational, representational, observational, and action constraints. It formulates this position as the Multi-Phase Inference Assumption (MIA) and defines its core internal mechanism as the Multi-Phase Inference Mechanism (MIM). The framework introduces alignment maps and transformation loss to analyze how heterogeneous world models communicate without being collapsed into a single representation. World-model alignment is therefore processability, not agreement: the design of AI systems that help heterogeneous forms of intelligence remain mutually processable while preserving their distinct error-detection capacities.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Amari, S. (2016). Information Geometry and Its Applications. Springer

    2016

  2. [2]

    Anderson, R. C. and Pichert, J. W. (1978). Recall of previously unrecallable information following a shift in perspective. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17(1), 1--12

    1978

  3. [3]

    Augustinaviciute, A. (1980). Socionics (Russian: Socionika). Manuscripts and lectures collected in Sochineniya, 2nd ed., Chernaya Belka Publishing, 2008

    1980

  4. [4]

    Bai, Y. et al. (2022). Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback. arXiv:2212.08073

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Bail, C. A. (2021). Breaking the Social Media Prism: How to Make Our Platforms Less Polarizing. Princeton University Press

    2021

  6. [6]

    Brohan, A. et al. (2023). RT-2: Vision-Language-Action Models Transfer Web Knowledge to Robotic Control. arXiv:2307.15818

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Bruner, J. S. and Postman, L. (1947). Tension and tension-release as organizing factors in perception. Journal of Personality, 15(4), 300--308

    1947

  8. [8]

    Buber, M. (1923). Ich und Du. Insel Verlag

    1923

Show all 101 references
  1. [9]

    Aristotle. (c. 350 BCE). Nicomachean Ethics and Metaphysics. Various editions

  2. [10]

    Berlin, I. (1969). Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford University Press

    1969

  3. [11]

    Burke, E. (1790). Reflections on the Revolution in France. J. Dodsley

  4. [12]

    Habermas, J. (1981). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Suhrkamp

    1981

  5. [13]

    Habermas, J. (1992). Faktizit\"at und Geltung. Suhrkamp

    1992

  6. [14]

    Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review, 35(4), 519--530

    1945

  7. [15]

    Hayek, F. A. (1960). The Constitution of Liberty. University of Chicago Press

    1960

  8. [16]

    Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. Andrew Crooke

  9. [17]

    Landemore, H. (2013). Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many. Princeton University Press

    2013

  10. [18]

    MacIntyre, A. (1981). After Virtue. University of Notre Dame Press

    1981

  11. [19]

    Oakeshott, M. (1962). Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays. Methuen

    1962

  12. [20]

    Ober, J. (2008). Democracy and Knowledge: Innovation and Learning in Classical Athens. Princeton University Press

    2008

  13. [21]

    Plato. (c. 380 BCE). Republic. Various editions

  14. [22]

    Popper, K. (1945). The Open Society and Its Enemies. Routledge

    1945

  15. [23]

    Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press

    1971

  16. [24]

    Rawls, J. (1993). Political Liberalism. Columbia University Press

    1993

  17. [25]

    Rousseau, J.-J. (1762). Du contrat social. Marc-Michel Rey

  18. [26]

    Sunstein, C. R. (2006). Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge. Oxford University Press

    2006

  19. [27]

    Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the Self. Harvard University Press

    1989

  20. [28]

    Taylor, C. (1992). The politics of recognition. In Gutmann, A. (ed.), Multiculturalism and the Politics of Recognition, pp. 25--73. Princeton University Press

    1992

  21. [29]

    Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 181--204

    2013

  22. [30]

    Costa, P. T. and McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual. Psychological Assessment Resources

    1992

  23. [31]

    Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness Explained. Little, Brown and Company

    1991

  24. [32]

    Dewey, J. (1925). Experience and Nature. Open Court Publishing

    1925

  25. [33]

    Foucault, M. (1966). Les mots et les choses: Une arch\'eologie des sciences humaines. Gallimard

    1966

  26. [34]

    European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence. Official Journal of the European Union

    2024

  27. [35]

    National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2023). Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0). NIST AI 100-1

    2023

  28. [36]

    Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2024). Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence. OECD Legal Instruments, OECD/LEGAL/0449

    2024

  29. [37]

    Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127--138

    2010

  30. [38]

    Friston, K., FitzGerald, T., Rigoli, F., Schwartenbeck, P., and Pezzulo, G. (2017). Active inference: a process theory. Neural Computation, 29(1), 1--49

    2017

  31. [39]

    Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Mifflin

    1979

  32. [40]

    Gmytrasiewicz, P. J. and Doshi, P. (2005). A framework for sequential planning in multi-agent settings. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 24, 49--79

    2005

  33. [41]

    Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative ``description of personality'': The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216--1229

    1990

  34. [42]

    Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, pp. 41--58. Academic Press

    1975

  35. [43]

    and Schmidhuber, J

    Ha, D. and Schmidhuber, J. (2018). World Models. arXiv:1803.10122

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Hafner, D., Lillicrap, T., Ba, J., and Norouzi, M. (2020). Dream to Control: Learning Behaviors by Latent Imagination. International Conference on Learning Representations

    2020

  37. [45]

    Hafner, D., Lillicrap, T., Norouzi, M., and Ba, J. (2021). Mastering Atari with Discrete World Models. International Conference on Learning Representations

    2021

  38. [46]

    Hegel, G. W. F. (1807). Ph\"anomenologie des Geistes. Joseph Anton Goebhardt

  39. [47]

    Heidegger, M. (1927). Sein und Zeit. Max Niemeyer Verlag

    1927

  40. [48]

    A., Madigan, D., Raftery, A

    Hoeting, J. A., Madigan, D., Raftery, A. E., and Volinsky, C. T. (1999). Bayesian model averaging: A tutorial. Statistical Science, 14(4), 382-417

    1999

  41. [49]

    Hume, D. (1748). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. A. Millar

  42. [50]

    anomenologie und ph\

    Husserl, E. (1913). Ideen zu einer reinen Ph\"anomenologie und ph\"anomenologischen Philosophie. Max Niemeyer

    1913

  43. [51]

    James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. Longmans, Green, and Co

    1907

  44. [52]

    Jung, C. G. (1921). Psychologische Typen. Rascher Verlag

    1921

  45. [53]

    Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux

    2011

  46. [54]

    Kant, I. (1781). Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Johann Friedrich Hartknoch

  47. [55]

    Kepinski, A. (1972). Rytm zycia. Wydawnictwo Literackie

    1972

  48. [56]

    Kierkegaard, S. (1849). Sygdommen til D den [The Sickness Unto Death]. C. A. Reitzel

  49. [57]

    Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press

    1962

  50. [58]

    Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. University of Chicago Press

    1987

  51. [59]

    LeCun, Y. (2022). A Path Towards Autonomous Machine Intelligence. OpenReview preprint

    2022

  52. [60]

    Lehmann, E. L. and Casella, G. (1998). Theory of Point Estimation, 2nd ed. Springer

    1998

  53. [61]

    L\'evi-Strauss, C. (1958). Anthropologie structurale. Plon

    1958

  54. [62]

    Levinas, E. (1961). Totalit\'e et infini: Essai sur l'ext\'eriorit\'e. Martinus Nijhoff

    1961

  55. [63]

    Locke, J. (1690). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Thomas Bassett

  56. [64]

    Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945). Ph\'enom\'enologie de la perception. Gallimard

    1945

  57. [65]

    Myers, I. B. and McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Consulting Psychologists Press

    1985

  58. [66]

    Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently---and Why. Free Press

    2003

  59. [67]

    Ouyang, L. et al. (2022). Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35

    2022

  60. [68]

    Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. Penguin Press

    2011

  61. [69]

    Parr, T., Pezzulo, G., and Friston, K. (2022). Active Inference: The Free Energy Principle in Mind, Brain, and Behavior. MIT Press

    2022

  62. [70]

    Peirce, C. S. (1958). Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Vols. 1--8, edited by C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss, and A. W. Burks. Harvard University Press

    1958

  63. [71]

    Pietrak, K. (2018). The foundations of socionics -- a review. Cognitive Systems Research, 47, 1--11

    2018

  64. [72]

    and Woodruff, G

    Premack, D. and Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(4), 515--526

    1978

  65. [73]

    and Stengers, I

    Prigogine, I. and Stengers, I. (1984). Order Out of Chaos: Man's New Dialogue with Nature. Bantam Books

    1984

  66. [74]

    Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and Object. MIT Press

    1960

  67. [75]

    Rabinowitz, N. C. et al. (2018). Machine theory of mind. Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, 80, 4218--4227

    2018

  68. [76]

    Rafailov, R. et al. (2023). Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2023

  69. [77]

    Rao, R. P. N. and Ballard, D. H. (1999). Predictive coding in the visual cortex: a functional interpretation of some extra-classical receptive-field effects. Nature Neuroscience, 2(1), 79--87

    1999

  70. [78]

    Sartre, J.-P. (1943). L'\^etre et le n\'eant: Essai d'ontologie ph\'enom\'enologique. Gallimard

    1943

  71. [79]

    Sapir, E. (1929). The Status of Linguistics as a Science. Language, 5(4), 207--214

    1929

  72. [80]

    Saussure, F. de. (1916). Cours de linguistique g\'en\'erale. Payot

    1916

  73. [81]

    Schmidhuber, J. (1991). A possibility for implementing curiosity and boredom in model-building neural controllers. Proceedings of the International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior: From Animals to Animats, 222--227

    1991

  74. [82]

    Schwartenbeck, P., FitzGerald, T. H. B., Mathys, C., Dolan, R., and Friston, K. (2015). The dopaminergic midbrain encodes the expected certainty about desired outcomes. Cerebral Cortex, 25(10), 3434--3445

    2015

  75. [83]

    Sunstein, C. R. (2017). \#Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton University Press

    2017

  76. [84]

    Sutton, R. S. and Barto, A. G. (2018). Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction, 2nd ed. MIT Press

    2018

  77. [85]

    Takahashi, T. (2026). Why Conclusions Diverge from the Same Observations: Formalizing World-Model Non-Identifiability via an Inference Profile. arXiv:2605.12255. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2605.12255

    2026 doi arXiv

  78. [86]

    C., and Bialek, W

    Tishby, N., Pereira, F. C., and Bialek, W. (1999). The information bottleneck method. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control and Computing, 368--377

    1999

  79. [87]

    Vaswani, A. et al. (2017). Attention is All You Need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30

    2017

  80. [88]

    Veissiere, S. P. L., Constant, A., Ramstead, M. J. D., Friston, K. J., and Kirmayer, L. J. (2020). Thinking through other minds: A variational approach to cognition and culture. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 43, e90

    2020

  81. [89]

    Wainwright, M. J. and Jordan, M. I. (2008). Graphical models, exponential families, and variational inference. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, 1(1--2), 1--305

    2008

  82. [90]

    Wei, J. et al. (2022). Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35

    2022

  83. [91]

    Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Edited by John B. Carroll. MIT Press

    1956

  84. [92]

    A., Dyk, R

    Witkin, H. A., Dyk, R. B., Faterson, H. F., Goodenough, D. R., and Karp, S. A. (1962). Psychological Differentiation: Studies of Development. Wiley

    1962

  85. [93]

    Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Routledge & Kegan Paul

    1922

  86. [94]

    Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Blackwell

    1953

  87. [95]

    Yao, S. et al. (2023). ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. International Conference on Learning Representations

    2023

  88. [96]

    Hayek, F. A. (1973). Law, Legislation and Liberty, Vol. 1: Rules and Order. University of Chicago Press

    1973

  89. [97]

    Locke, J. (1689). Two Treatises of Government. Awnsham Churchill

  90. [98]

    Cover, T. M. and Thomas, J. A. (2006). Elements of Information Theory (2nd ed.). Wiley

    2006

  91. [99]

    Pitman, E. J. G. (1936). Sufficient statistics and intrinsic accuracy. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 32(4), 567--579

    1936

  92. [100]

    Darmois, G. (1935). Sur les lois de probabilit\' e \` a estimation exhaustive. Comptes Rendus de l'Acad\' e mie des Sciences , 200, 1265--1266

    1935

  93. [101]

    Koopman, B. O. (1936). On distributions admitting a sufficient statistic. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 39, 399--409

    1936

Pith tools

Reviewed June 29, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.