Substrate Stability Under Persistent Disagreement: Structural Constraints for Neutral Ontological Substrates

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.16152v1
• Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2026 17:51:02 GMT
• Title: Substrate Stability Under Persistent Disagreement: Structural Constraints for Neutral Ontological Substrates
• Abstract summary: interoperability cannot rely on shared interpretation, negotiated semantics, or centralized authority.<n>This paper investigates the structural constraints imposed on ontological design by this requirement.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Modern data systems increasingly operate under conditions of persistent legal, political, and analytic disagreement. In such settings, interoperability cannot rely on shared interpretation, negotiated semantics, or centralized authority. Instead, representations must function as neutral substrates that preserve stable reference across incompatible extensions. This paper investigates the structural constraints imposed on ontological design by this requirement. Building on a neutrality framework that treats interpretive non-commitment and stability under extension as explicit design constraints, we ask what minimal ontological structure is forced if accountability relationships are to remain referable and comparable under disagreement. Minimality here is not mere parsimony: a reduction is admissible only if it does not reintroduce stability-critical distinctions as hidden roles, flags, or contextual predicates. We establish a conditional lower-bound result: any ontology capable of supporting accountability under persistent disagreement must realize at least six distinct identity-and-persistence regimes. We further show that a construction with exactly six such regimes is sufficient to satisfy the stated requirements without embedding causal or normative commitments in the substrate. The result is not a proposal for a universal ontology, but a constraint on what is possible when neutrality and stable reference are treated as non-negotiable design goals.

Related papers

• A Minimal $κ$--$τ$ Logic for Risk-Sensitive Abduction [0.0]
  This paper argues that in risk-sensitive domains, the timing of commitment is itself a governed decision.<n>We present a minimal $$--$$ logical framework built on two primitives.<n>The framework provides formal machinery for domains in which the distinction between highly likely and commit-worthy is operationally consequential.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-08T15:35:32Z)
• Position: Anthropomorphic Misalignment Research Needs Stronger Evidence [52.76826423649968]
  We show how conceptual ambiguity, non-robust datasets, experimental design, and insufficient causal interventions can lead to overinterpretation of model behaviors.<n>This position paper aims to offer guidance on evidentiary considerations that can help improve methodological rigor in AMR.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-29T16:38:53Z)
• Constrained latent state modeling: A unifying perspective on representation learning under competing constraints [0.6496997624776696]
  Learning latent representations from complex data is central to modern machine learning.<n>Current approaches remain fragmented, relying on distinct -- and often implicit -- assumptions about what these states should represent.<n>We argue that latent representations are typically learned from underconstrained objectives that fail to specify the properties that meaningful latent states should satisfy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-15T14:25:40Z)
• Interpretability Can Be Actionable [50.72539106927059]
  Interpretability aims to explain the behavior of deep neural networks.<n>Despite rapid growth, there is mounting concern that much of this work has not translated into practical impact.<n>This position paper argues that the central missing ingredient is not new methods, but evaluation criteria: interpretability should be evaluated by actionability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-11T19:08:21Z)
• From Liar Paradox to Incongruent Sets: A Normal Form for Self-Reference [0.0]
  We study the role of incongruence as a structural source of semantic informativeness.<n>We show that semantic completeness precludes informativeness, while incongruence preserves it.<n>Incongruence manifests structurally as locally realizable but globally incompatible semantic commitments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-25T17:04:42Z)
• When Contextual Inference Fails: Cancelability in Interactive Instruction Following [51.2195840589474]
  We introduce Build What I Mean, an interactive benchmark for contextual meaning construction.<n>In BWIM, models must resolve ambiguity by either performing a contextual inference or requesting clarification at a small communication cost.<n>We observe suboptimal strategies, such as partner-blind over-clarification and question-averse guessing under uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-20T14:46:59Z)
• Verification of Robust Properties for Access Control Policies [51.736723807086385]
  Existing methods for verifying access control policies require the policy to be complete and fully determined before verification can proceed.<n>We introduce robust property verification: the problem of determining what a policy's structure commits it to regardless of how pending decisions are resolved and regardless of subsequent extension.<n>We show that despite quantifying universally over all possible policy extensions the judgment reduces to proof search in a second-order logic programming language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-13T17:14:38Z)
• Position: General Alignment Has Hit a Ceiling; Edge Alignment Must Be Taken Seriously [51.03213216886717]
  We take the position that the dominant paradigm of General Alignment reaches a structural ceiling in settings with conflicting values.<n>We introduce Edge Alignment as a distinct approach in which systems preserve multi dimensional value structure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-23T16:51:43Z)
• Rethinking Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Point Clouds from a Compact Subspace Perspective [55.919842734983156]
  CoSA is a transferable attack framework that operates within a shared low-dimensional semantic space.<n>CoSA consistently outperforms state-of-the-art transferable attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T15:48:11Z)
• The Ontological Neutrality Theorem: Why Neutral Ontological Substrates Must Be Pre-Causal and Pre-Normative [0.0]
  Modern data systems must support accountability across persistent legal, political, and analytic disagreement.<n> neutrality, understood as non-commitment and stability under incompatible extensions, is incompatible with the inclusion of causal or normative commitments.<n>It follows that neutral ontological substrates must be pre-causal and pre-normative, representing entities, together with identity and persistence conditions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-08T02:36:13Z)
• Non-Resolution Reasoning (NRR): A Computational Framework for Contextual Identity and Ambiguity Preservation [0.0]
  Current artificial intelligence systems exhibit a fundamental architectural limitation: they resolve ambiguity prematurely.<n>This premature semantic collapse stems from classical identity assumptions embedded in standard neural architectures.<n>We propose Non-Resolution Reasoning (NRR), a computational framework that treats ambiguity retention as a valid reasoning mode.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-15T16:14:32Z)
• Toward a Graph-Theoretic Model of Belief: Confidence, Credibility, and Structural Coherence [0.0]
  This paper introduces a minimal formalism for belief systems as directed, weighted graphs.<n>Unlike logical and argumentation-based frameworks, it supports fine-grained structural representation without committing to binary justification status or deductive closure.<n>Its aim is to provide a foundational substrate for analyzing the internal organization of belief systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T14:03:23Z)
• Modal Logic for Stratified Becoming: Actualization Beyond Possible Worlds [55.2480439325792]
  This article develops a novel framework for modal logic based on the idea of stratified actualization.<n>Traditional Kripke semantics treat modal operators as quantification over fully determinate alternatives.<n>We propose a system Stratified Actualization Logic (SAL) in which modalities are indexed by levels of ontological stability, interpreted as admissibility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-12T18:35:01Z)
• On the Transferability and Discriminability of Repersentation Learning in Unsupervised Domain Adaptation [40.32838937328407]
  A standard adversarial-based framework neglects the discriminability of target-domain features, leading to suboptimal performance.<n>We propose a novel framework that explicitly integrates a domain alignment objective with a discriminability-enhancing constraint.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T08:24:43Z)
• A Causal Inspired Early-Branching Structure for Domain Generalization [46.55514281988053]
  Learning domain-invariant semantic representations is crucial for achieving domain generalization. Standard training often results in entangled semantic and domain-specific features. Previous works suggest formulating the problem from a causal perspective. We propose two strategies as complements for the basic framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-13T16:04:29Z)
• Exploiting hidden structures in non-convex games for convergence to Nash equilibrium [62.88214569402201]
  A wide array of modern machine learning applications can be formulated as non-cooperative Nashlibria. We provide explicit convergence guarantees for both deterministic and deterministic environments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-27T15:21:25Z)
• Unifying different notions of quantum incompatibility into a strict hierarchy of resource theories of communication [60.18814584837969]
  We introduce the notion of q-compatibility, which unifies different notions of POVMs, channels, and instruments incompatibility. We are able to pinpoint exactly what each notion of incompatibility consists of, in terms of information-theoretic resources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-16T21:33:31Z)
• Admissibility in Strength-based Argumentation: Complexity and Algorithms (Extended Version with Proofs) [1.5828697880068698]
  We study the adaptation of admissibility-based semantics to Strength-based Argumentation Frameworks (StrAFs) Especially, we show that the strong admissibility defined in the literature does not satisfy a desirable property, namely Dung's fundamental lemma. We propose a translation in pseudo-Boolean constraints for computing (strong and weak) extensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-05T18:42:04Z)
• Stability in Abstract Argumentation [2.375764121997739]
  We show how the notion of stability can be translated into reasoning with Argument-Incomplete AFs. We illustrate to what extent this notion can be useful with an application to argument-based negotiation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-23T10:34:38Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.