In simulations, positive evidence threshold for Bayesian model reduction corresponds to ΔF ≤ −3, equivalent to odds ratio of exp(−3) ≈ 0.05 (reduced model ~20 times more likely than full model).

Entities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.

• Bayesian model reduction after 12 trials correctly removes off-diagonal (redundant) parameters from the likelihood array, recovering the true contingency structure.finding0.837
  Validation that BMR correctly identifies and prunes wrong connections in the likelihood mapping
• Bayesian model reduction formalises post-hoc hypothesis testing to simplify the generative model.claim0.824
  Definition of Bayesian model reduction, Section 9.1.
• Nearly all of 64 simulated agents attain 100% performance at around the 10th trial when allowed to perform abductive Bayesian model reduction after each trial.finding0.800
  Group-level simulation result showing generalizability of BMR benefit across agents
• In single-agent simulation of 32 trials, performance becomes perfect after trial 14 without Bayesian model reduction, with confidence increasing progressively.finding0.793
  Baseline learning curve for pure epistemic learning without structure learning
• Human participants in the rule-learning paradigm should acquire insight after approximately 7–8 trials, fewer than the ~14 required by Bayes-optimal inference without model reduction, suggesting they perform Bayesian model selection.hypothesis0.776
  Based on informal audience experiments; implies people use prior knowledge about rule structure
• Under reward shaping (G=100, H=-100, F=0), Active Inference scored 99.52, Bayesian RL 99.77, Q-learning 95.56, with nearly identical behavior between belief-based agents.finding0.773
  Table 2, row 3, showing equivalence when prior preferences match rewards.
• Hypothesis 1 (Threshold Behavior): There exists a task-dependent threshold Sc such that performance exhibits sharp changes as S crosses Sc, with value and transition width depending on model, layer, and poolinghypothesis0.770
  Core testable hypothesis of UCCT about the nature of performance transitions under anchoring
• Mean validated introspective fidelity across concept-model pairs: R²=0.12 (1B), 0.37 (3B), 0.61 (8B); pooled LMM β=0.29, p=5.55×10⁻⁹⁹finding0.768
  Strong scaling trend for introspective fidelity when excluding invalid steering-sign pairs