A "good regulator theorem" for embodied agents
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In a classic paper, Conant and Ashby claimed that "every good regulator of a system must be a model of that system." Artificial Life has produced many examples of systems that perform tasks with apparently no model in sight; these suggest Conant and Ashby's theorem doesn't easily generalise beyond its restricted setup. Nevertheless, here we show that a similar intuition can be fleshed out in a different way: whenever an agent is able to perform a regulation task, it is possible for an observer to interpret it as having "beliefs" about its environment, which it "updates" in response to sensory input. This notion of belief updating provides a notion of model that is more sophisticated than Conant and Ashby's, as well as a theorem that is more broadly applicable. However, it necessitates a change in perspective, in that the observer plays an essential role in the theory: models are not a mere property of the system but are imposed on it from outside. Our theorem holds regardless of whether the system is regulating its environment in a classic control theory setup, or whether it's regulating its own internal state; the model is of its environment either way. The model might be trivial, however, and this is how the apparent counterexamples are resolved.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 47 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Aug 2025.
Builds on
12 of 47 references.
References · 12
- 2019Meta-learning of Sequential Strategiescited by 70
- 2019A free energy principle for a particular physicscited by 40
- 2018Causal Inference by String Diagram Surgerycited by 24
- 2025General agents contain world modelscited by 17
- 2022The d-separation criterion in Categorical Probabilitycited by 12
- 2021Bayesian Mechanics for Stationary Processescited by 10
- 2022Interpreting systems as solving POMDPs: a step towards a formal understanding of agencycited by 7
- 2017A Channel-Based Perspective on Conjugate Priorscited by 6
- 2021Interpreting Dynamical Systems as Bayesian Reasonerscited by 5
- 2025A Bayesian Interpretation of the Internal Model Principlecited by 5
- 2024Formalising the intentional stance 1: attributing goals and beliefs to stochastic processescited by 1
- 2025Formalising the intentional stance 2: a coinductive approachcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 4.
4 papers.
- 2026From Runtime Records to Legal Findings: An Evidentiary-Adequacy Criterion for Agentic AI Oversightcited by 2
- 2026Verifying Good Regulator Conditions for Hypergraph Observers: Natural Gradient Learning from Causal Invariance via Established Theoremscited by 0
- 2026A Matter of Time: Towards a General Theory of Agencycited by 0
- 2026The Anatomy of a Blind Spot: What an LLM Judge Must Be Shown, and How Muchcited by 0
- 2026The Anatomy of a Blind Spot: What an LLM Judge Must Be Shown, and How Much11 Oct 2026
- 2026From Runtime Records to Legal Findings: An Evidentiary-Adequacy Criterion for Agentic AI Oversight1 Jul 2026
- 2026A Matter of Time: Towards a General Theory of Agency22 Jun 2026
- 2026Verifying Good Regulator Conditions for Hypergraph Observers: Natural Gradient Learning from Causal Invariance via Established Theorems10 Mar 2026