Encoding Markov Logic Networks in Possibilistic Logic

Markov logic uses weighted formulas to compactly encode a probability distribution over possible worlds. Despite the use of logical formulas, Markov logic networks (MLNs) can be difficult to interpret, due to the often counter-intuitive meaning of their weights. To address this issue, we propose a method to construct a possibilistic logic theory that exactly captures what can be derived from a given MLN using maximum a posteriori (MAP) inference. Unfortunately, the size of this theory is exponential in general. We therefore also propose two methods which can derive compact theories that still capture MAP inference, but only for specific types of evidence. These theories can be used, among others, to make explicit the hidden assumptions underlying an MLN or to explain the predictions it makes.Comment: Extended version of a paper appearing in UAI 201

Higher-Order Defeat and Doxastic Resilience

It seems obvious that when higher-order evidence makes it rational for one to doubt that one’s own belief on some matter is rational, this can undermine the rationality of that belief. This is known as higher-order defeat. However, despite its intuitive plausibility, it has proved puzzling how higher-order defeat works, exactly. To highlight two prominent sources of puzzlement, higher-order defeat seems to defy being understood in terms of conditionalization; and higher-order defeat can sometimes place agents in what seem like epistemic dilemmas. This chapter draws attention to an overlooked aspect of higher-order defeat, namely that it can undermine the resilience of one’s beliefs. The notion of resilience was originally devised to understand how one should reflect the ‘weight’ of one’s evidence. But it can also be applied to understand how one should reflect one’s higher-order evidence. The idea is particularly useful for understanding cases where one’s higher-order evidence indicates that one has failed in correctly assessing the evidence, without indicating whether one has over- or underestimated the degree of evidential support for a proposition. But it is exactly in such cases that the puzzles of higher-order defeat seem most compelling

What May I Hope? Why It Can Be Rational to Rely on One’s Hope

In hoping, what is important to us seems possible, which makes our life appear meaningful and motivates us to do everything within our reach to bring about the things that we hope for. I argue that it can be rational to rely on one’s hope: hope can deceive us, but it can also represent things correctly to us. I start with Philip Pettit’s view that hope is a cognitive resolve. I reject this view and suggest instead that hope is an emotion: hope is a felt evaluation for which we can define a corresponding character trait which in its turn qualifies as a virtue if it is felt whenever its correctness conditions are satisfied. For religious hope in particular it follows from my analysis that, if I believe, I may hope

A Generalized Method for Integrating Rule-based Knowledge into Inductive Methods Through Virtual Sample Creation

Hybrid learning methods use theoretical knowledge of a domain and a set of classified examples to develop a method for classification. Methods that use domain knowledge have been shown to perform better than inductive learners. However, there is no general method to include domain knowledge into all inductive learning algorithms as all hybrid methods are highly specialized for a particular algorithm. We present an algorithm that will take domain knowledge in the form of propositional rules, generate artificial examples from the rules and also remove instances likely to be flawed. This enriched dataset then can be used by any learning algorithm. Experimental results of different scenarios are shown that demonstrate this method to be more effective than simple inductive learning