Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso digital |
| Language: | |
| Published: |
Zenodo
2026
|
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18519100 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866901156086677504 |
|---|---|
| author | Maley, Amos |
| author_facet | Maley, Amos |
| contents | <p>This paper establishes <strong>standing</strong> as a necessary condition for admissible reasoning in artificial epistemic agents and proves its strict equivalence to admissibility under fail-closed evaluation. It shows that agents lacking standing cannot produce meaningful, reference-grounded claims, regardless of internal coherence, learning capacity, or optimization success. The analysis is necessity-based and exhaustion-driven: all proposed alternatives to standing (probabilistic validation, performance metrics, post-hoc justification, governance overlays, or repair strategies) are shown to fail structurally. No algorithms or construction procedures are provided. The result is a binary boundary on what counts as a legitimate epistemic agent and a foundational constraint on artificial reasoning systems.</p> |
| format | Recurso digital |
| id | zenodo_https___doi_org_10_5281_zenodo_18519100 |
| institution | Zenodo |
| language | |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| publisher | Zenodo |
| record_format | zenodo |
| spellingShingle | Admissibility and Standing in Artificial Epistemic Agents Maley, Amos <p>This paper establishes <strong>standing</strong> as a necessary condition for admissible reasoning in artificial epistemic agents and proves its strict equivalence to admissibility under fail-closed evaluation. It shows that agents lacking standing cannot produce meaningful, reference-grounded claims, regardless of internal coherence, learning capacity, or optimization success. The analysis is necessity-based and exhaustion-driven: all proposed alternatives to standing (probabilistic validation, performance metrics, post-hoc justification, governance overlays, or repair strategies) are shown to fail structurally. No algorithms or construction procedures are provided. The result is a binary boundary on what counts as a legitimate epistemic agent and a foundational constraint on artificial reasoning systems.</p> |
| title | Admissibility and Standing in Artificial Epistemic Agents |
| url | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18519100 |