36,728 research outputs found
Belief dependence: How do the numbers count?
This paper is about how to aggregate outside opinion. If two experts are on one side of an issue, while three experts are on the other side, what should a non-expert believe? Certainly, the non-expert should take into account more than just the numbers. But which other factors are relevant, and why? According to the view developed here, one important factor is whether the experts should have been expected, in advance, to reach the same conclusion. When the agreement of two (or of twenty) thinkers can be predicted with certainty in advance, their shared belief is worth only as much as one of their beliefs would be worth alone. This expectational model of belief dependence can be applied whether we think in terms of credences or in terms of all-or-nothing beliefs
Reliable Uncertain Evidence Modeling in Bayesian Networks by Credal Networks
A reliable modeling of uncertain evidence in Bayesian networks based on a
set-valued quantification is proposed. Both soft and virtual evidences are
considered. We show that evidence propagation in this setup can be reduced to
standard updating in an augmented credal network, equivalent to a set of
consistent Bayesian networks. A characterization of the computational
complexity for this task is derived together with an efficient exact procedure
for a subclass of instances. In the case of multiple uncertain evidences over
the same variable, the proposed procedure can provide a set-valued version of
the geometric approach to opinion pooling.Comment: 19 page
Belief Revision in Science: Informational Economy and Paraconsistency
In the present paper, our objective is to examine the application of belief revision models to scientific rationality. We begin by considering the standard model AGM, and along the way a number of problems surface that make it seem inadequate for this specific application. After considering three different heuristics of informational economy that seem fit for science, we consider some possible adaptations for it and argue informally that, overall, some paraconsistent models seem to better satisfy these principles, following Testa (2015). These models have been worked out in formal detail by Testa, Cogniglio, & Ribeiro (2015, 2017)
Evidence and plausibility in neighborhood structures
The intuitive notion of evidence has both semantic and syntactic features. In
this paper, we develop an {\em evidence logic} for epistemic agents faced with
possibly contradictory evidence from different sources. The logic is based on a
neighborhood semantics, where a neighborhood indicates that the agent has
reason to believe that the true state of the world lies in . Further notions
of relative plausibility between worlds and beliefs based on the latter
ordering are then defined in terms of this evidence structure, yielding our
intended models for evidence-based beliefs. In addition, we also consider a
second more general flavor, where belief and plausibility are modeled using
additional primitive relations, and we prove a representation theorem showing
that each such general model is a -morphic image of an intended one. This
semantics invites a number of natural special cases, depending on how uniform
we make the evidence sets, and how coherent their total structure. We give a
structural study of the resulting `uniform' and `flat' models. Our main result
are sound and complete axiomatizations for the logics of all four major model
classes with respect to the modal language of evidence, belief and safe belief.
We conclude with an outlook toward logics for the dynamics of changing
evidence, and the resulting language extensions and connections with logics of
plausibility change
Modeling Belief in Dynamic Systems, Part II: Revision and Update
The study of belief change has been an active area in philosophy and AI. In
recent years two special cases of belief change, belief revision and belief
update, have been studied in detail. In a companion paper (Friedman & Halpern,
1997), we introduce a new framework to model belief change. This framework
combines temporal and epistemic modalities with a notion of plausibility,
allowing us to examine the change of beliefs over time. In this paper, we show
how belief revision and belief update can be captured in our framework. This
allows us to compare the assumptions made by each method, and to better
understand the principles underlying them. In particular, it shows that Katsuno
and Mendelzon's notion of belief update (Katsuno & Mendelzon, 1991a) depends on
several strong assumptions that may limit its applicability in artificial
intelligence. Finally, our analysis allow us to identify a notion of minimal
change that underlies a broad range of belief change operations including
revision and update.Comment: See http://www.jair.org/ for other files accompanying this articl
- …