On the Impossibility of Amalgamating Evidence

Aki Lehtinen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-013-9209-5

2013-01-01

Abstract:It is argued in this paper that amalgamating confirmation from various sources is relevantly different from social-choice contexts, and that proving an impossibility theorem for aggregating confirmation measures directs attention to irrelevant issues.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Statistics as a Social Activity: Attitudes toward Amalgamating Evidence

Andrew Gelman,Keith O'Rourke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/e26080652

2024-07-30

Abstract:Amalgamation of evidence in statistics is conducted in several ways. Within a study, multiple observations are combined by averaging, or as factors in a likelihood or prediction algorithm. In multilevel modeling or Bayesian analysis, population or prior information is combined with data using the weighted averaging derived from probability modeling. In a scientific research project, inferences from data analysis are interpreted in light of mechanistic models and substantive theories. Within a scholarly or applied research community, data and conclusions from separate laboratories are amalgamated through a series of steps, including peer review, meta-analysis, review articles, and replication studies. These issues have been discussed for many years in the philosophy of science and statistics, gaining attention in recent decades first with the renewed popularity of Bayesian inference and then with concerns about the replication crisis in science. In this article, we review the amalgamation of statistical evidence from different perspectives, connecting the foundations of statistics to the social processes of validation, criticism, and consensus building.
Aggregating Credences into Beliefs: Agenda Conditions for Impossibility Results

Minkyung Wang,Chisu Kim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.379.39

2023-07-11

Abstract:Binarizing belief aggregation addresses how to rationally aggregate individual probabilistic beliefs into collective binary beliefs. Similar to the development of judgment aggregation theory, formulating axiomatic requirements, proving impossibility theorems, and identifying exact agenda conditions of impossibility theorems are natural and important research topics in binarizing belief aggregation. Building on our previous research on impossibility theorems, we use an agenda-theoretic approach to generalize the results and to determine the necessary and sufficient level of logical interconnection between the issues in an agenda for the impossibility theorems to arise. We demonstrate that (1) path-connectedness and even-negatability constitute the exact agenda condition for the oligarchy result stating that binarizing belief aggregation satisfying proposition-wise independence and deductive closure of collective beliefs yields the oligarchies under minor conditions; (2) negation-connectedness is the condition for the triviality result obtained by adding anonymity to the oligarchy result; and (3) blockedness is the condition for the impossibility result, which follows by adding completeness and consistency of collective beliefs. Moreover, we compare these novel findings with existing agenda-theoretic characterization theorems in judgment aggregation and belief binarization.

Artificial Intelligence,Computer Science and Game Theory,Logic in Computer Science
Evidential Confirmation as Transformed Probability

Benjamin N. Grosof

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1304.3439

2013-03-28

Abstract:A considerable body of work in AI has been concerned with aggregating measures of confirmatory and disconfirmatory evidence for a common set of propositions. Claiming classical probability to be inadequate or inappropriate, several researchers have gone so far as to invent new formalisms and methods. We show how to represent two major such alternative approaches to evidential confirmation not only in terms of transformed (Bayesian) probability, but also in terms of each other. This unifies two of the leading approaches to confirmation theory, by showing that a revised MYCIN Certainty Factor method [12] is equivalent to a special case of Dempster-Shafer theory. It yields a well-understood axiomatic basis, i.e. conditional independence, to interpret previous work on quantitative confirmation theory. It substantially resolves the "taxe-them-or-leave-them" problem of priors: MYCIN had to leave them out, while PROSPECTOR had to have them in. It recasts some of confirmation theory's advantages in terms of the psychological accessibility of probabilistic information in different (transformed) formats. Finally, it helps to unify the representation of uncertain reasoning (see also [11]).

Artificial Intelligence
Logical difficulty from combining counterfactuals in the GHZ-Bell theorems

Louis Sica

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/am.2013.410A3012

2013-11-28

Abstract:In eliminating the fair sampling assumption, the Greenberger, Horne, Zeilinger (GHZ) theorem is believed to confirm Bell's historic conclusion that local hidden variables are inconsistent with the results of quantum mechanics. The GHZ theorem depends on predicting the results of sets of measurements of which only one may be performed. In the present paper, the non-commutative aspects of these unperformed measurements are critically examined. Classical examples and the logic of the GHZ construction are analyzed to demonstrate that combined counterfactual results of non-commuting operations are in general logically inconsistent with performed measurement sequences whose results depend on non-commutation. The Bell theorem is also revisited in the light of this result. It is concluded that negative conclusions regarding local hidden variables do not follow from the GHZ and Bell theorems as historically reasoned.

Quantum Physics
Locally Solvable Tasks and the Limitations of Valency Arguments

Hagit Attiya,Armando Castañeda,Sergio Rajsbaum

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2011.10436

2021-07-28

Abstract:An elegant strategy for proving impossibility results in distributed computing was introduced in the celebrated FLP consensus impossibility proof. This strategy is local in nature as at each stage, one configuration of a hypothetical protocol for consensus is considered, together with future valencies of possible extensions. This proof strategy has been used in numerous situations related to consensus, leading one to wonder why it has not been used in impossibility results of two other well-known tasks: set agreement and renaming. This paper provides an explanation of why impossibility proofs of these tasks have been of a global nature. It shows that a protocol can always solve such tasks locally, in the following sense. Given a configuration and all its future valencies, if a single successor configuration is selected, then the protocol can reveal all decisions in this branch of executions, satisfying the task specification. This result is shown for both set agreement and renaming, implying that there are no local impossibility proofs for these tasks.

Distributed, Parallel, and Cluster Computing
Aggregating individual credences into collective binary beliefs: an impossibility result

Minkyung Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-023-09968-2

2024-01-15

Theory and Decision

Abstract:This paper addresses how multiple individual credences on logically related issues should be aggregated into collective binary beliefs. We call this binarizing belief aggregation. It is vulnerable to dilemmas such as the discursive dilemma or the lottery paradox: proposition-wise independent aggregation can generate inconsistent or not deductively closed collective judgments. Addressing this challenge using the familiar axiomatic approach, we introduce general conditions on a binarizing belief aggregation rule, including rationality conditions on individual inputs and collective outputs, and determine which rules (if any) satisfy different combinations of these conditions. Furthermore, we analyze similarities and differences between our proofs and other related proofs in the literature and conclude that the problem of binarizing belief aggregation is a free-standing aggregation problem not reducible to judgment aggregation or probabilistic opinion pooling.

economics,social sciences, mathematical methods
Conflict Free Rule for Combining Evidences

Frederic Dambreville

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.math/0608116

2006-08-04

Abstract:Recent works have investigated the problem of the conflict redistribution in the fusion rules of evidence theories. As a consequence of these works, many new rules have been proposed. Now, there is not a clear theoretical criterion for a choice of a rule instead another. The present chapter proposes a new theoretically grounded rule, based on a new concept of sensor independence. This new rule avoids the conflict redistribution, by an adaptive combination of the beliefs. Both the logical grounds and the algorithmic implementation are considered.

Logic,Logic in Computer Science,Statistics Theory
Queries on Hempel’s Solution to the Paradoxes of Confirmation

Dun Xinguo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11466-007-0008-0

2007-01-01

Frontiers of Philosophy in China

Abstract:To solve the highly counterintuitive paradox of confirmation represented by the statement, “A pair of red shoes confirms that all ravens are black,” Hempel employed a strategy that retained the equivalence condition but abandoned Nicod’s irrelevance condition. However, his use of the equivalence condition is fairly ad hoc, raising doubts about its applicability to this problem. Furthermore, applying the irrelevance condition from Nicod’s criterion does not necessarily lead to paradoxes, nor does discarding it prevent the emergence of paradoxes. Hempel’s approach fails to adequately resolve the paradox.
A New Method of Combination Rules of Evidences Based on Concordance Evidences Conflict

LIANG Chang-yong,YE Chun-sen,ZHANG En-qiao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2010.04.025

2010-01-01

Abstract:Aiming to the problem of conflict from intuition decision making and the combination result of dempster-shafer,a new combination rule was proposed in this paper based on the classes of evidence conflicts.The two types of absurdity were firstly presented according to demand of decision-making in real world,which are one-vote-down system and public clamor can confound right and wrong.Some errors were analyzed,which is caused by the irrational definition of evidence conflicts in view of information strengthened or lessened.Finally,two numerical examples and experiments were applied to illustrate the validity of the proposed method.
Analysis of Conflict Evidence Combination about D-S Evidential Theory

ZhANG Yu-zhuo,YU Ying

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1007-9793.2007.04.007

2007-01-01

Abstract:The paper analyze the invalidation problem that D-S evidential theory combine conflict evidence.There are two main streams improving methods at home and abroad.One is to improve the D-S fusion formula and the other is to modify the fusion model.The experiment shows that modification methods can improve the reliability and rationality of the fusion result.
A New and Better Rule for Combining Sharply Conflicting Evidences

Gao Shesheng,Ni Longqiang,Yang Kai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-2758.2009.01.008

2009-01-01

Abstract:Section 1 of the full paper briefly introduces the Dempster-Shafer(D-S) evidence theory,which is useful when the evidences conflict with each other insignificantly.Section 2 summarizes past attempts on improving the D-S combination rule for sharply conflicting evidences.The last paragraph of section 2 presents our new and we believe better idea on improving it.Section 3 outlines the steps of our new and better combination rule and gives eq.(5) as the fusion rule.Section 4 uses an illustrative example to fuse the data in Ref.8 with various combination rules respectively.The fusion results,given in Table 1,and using Table 1 to discuss one numerical case show preliminarily that our combination rule has fast convergence and enhances the reliability of decision making.
The conjunction fallacy: confirmation or relevance?

WooJin Chung,Kevin Dorst,Matthew Mandelkern,Salvador Mascarenhas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2024.2374545

2024-07-14

Thinking & Reasoning

Abstract:The conjunction fallacy is the well-documented reasoning error on which people rate a conjunction A∧B as more probable than one of its conjuncts, A . Many explanations appeal to the fact that B has a high probability in the given scenarios, but Katya Tentori and collaborators have challenged such approaches. They report experiments suggesting that degree of confirmation —rather than probability—is the central determinant of the conjunction fallacy. In this paper, we have two goals. First, we address a confound in Tentori et al.'s experiments: they failed to control for the fact that in their stimuli where B is confirmed, it is also conversationally relevant in the sense that it fits with the topic or question under discussion . Conversely, when B has a high probability but is not confirmed, it is conversationally irrelevant . Consequently, it is possible that conversational relevance, rather than confirmation, is responsible for the differences they found between confirmed and probable hypotheses. Second, inspired by recent theoretical work, we aim to give the first empirical investigation of the hypothesis that this type of conversational relevance on its own—independently of degree of confirmation—can be an important factor in the conjunction fallacy. We report on two experiments that vary Tentori et al.'s design by making B relevant without changing its degree of probability or confirmation. We found that doing so increases the rate of the conjunction fallacy, suggesting that relevance plays an important role in the conjunction fallacy.

psychology, experimental
Combining Conflicting Evidence Using the DEMATEL Method

Weiquan Zhang,Yong Deng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3455-8

IF: 3.732

2018-01-01

Soft Computing

Abstract:Dempster–Shafer evidence theory is widely used in the information fusion field for its effectivity in representing and handling uncertain information. However, applications of Dempster rule in combining multiple conflicting evidence often cause counterintuitive results. One of the existing researches on conflict is based on the similarity of evidence. However, due to the fact that computational complexity of the existing methods is large, it is difficult to meet the real-time requirements of systems. Therefore, new effective methods with acceptable expense should be explored. In this article, following the idea of modifying the source model of evidence, a new method based on DEMATEL is proposed to take the weight of each evidence into consideration. First, the total-relation matrix is determined by the similarity among evidence. Second, prominence and importance are calculated. Finally, the weighted average combination result can be obtained based on Dempster’s rule of combination. Numerical examples are used to demonstrate that the proposed model is efficient to both deals with conflicting evidence and reduce computational complexity.
Impossibility Results in AI: A Survey

Mario Brcic,Roman V. Yampolskiy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3603371

2022-02-20

Abstract:An impossibility theorem demonstrates that a particular problem or set of problems cannot be solved as described in the claim. Such theorems put limits on what is possible to do concerning artificial intelligence, especially the super-intelligent one. As such, these results serve as guidelines, reminders, and warnings to AI safety, AI policy, and governance researchers. These might enable solutions to some long-standing questions in the form of formalizing theories in the framework of constraint satisfaction without committing to one option. We strongly believe this to be the most prudent approach to long-term AI safety initiatives. In this paper, we have categorized impossibility theorems applicable to AI into five mechanism-based categories: deduction, indistinguishability, induction, tradeoffs, and intractability. We found that certain theorems are too specific or have implicit assumptions that limit application. Also, we added new results (theorems) such as the unfairness of explainability, the first explainability-related result in the induction category. The remaining results deal with misalignment between the clones and put a limit to the self-awareness of agents. We concluded that deductive impossibilities deny 100%-guarantees for security. In the end, we give some ideas that hold potential in explainability, controllability, value alignment, ethics, and group decision-making. They can be deepened by further investigation.

Artificial Intelligence,Computers and Society
ON THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF THE CONVERSE CONSEQUENCE CONDITION AND HEMPELIAN QUALITATIVE CONFIRMATION

Dun Xin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-7623.2001.01.006

2001-01-01

Abstract:In this paper, I hold that a disastrous conclusion (namely,that any observation report confirms any hypothesis) may be derived from the combination of converse consequence condition and the conditions of adequacy of Hempelian qualitative confirmation and point out that the three strategies of solving the disaster is at the cost of the converse consequence condition and one or two of the confirmative conditions of adequacy just to show the incompatibility of the converse consequence condition and the conditions of adequacy. I also hold that the syntheticity restriction strategy is incompatible with the satisfaction criterion of Hempelian qualitative confirmation.
Logical Validity and Alethic Pluralism: Two Problems and One Solution

Andrea Strollo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26350/001050_000239

2022-01-01

Abstract:According to a standard formulation, alethic pluralism holds that there are many properties of truth. The position has been challenged to make sense of the traditional definition of logical validity, understood as a necessary truth preservation. The challenge consists of two problems: one, well known, posed by mixed inferences, and another, new, related to the unity of logical validity. In this paper, I argue that a pluralist semantics for compounded sentences, put forward by Douglas Edwards, can be used to overcome both difficulties.
A Novel Method for Combining Conflicting Evidences Based on Information Entropy

Jin Qian,Xingfeng Guo,Yong Deng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-016-0875-y

IF: 5.3

2016-01-01

Applied Intelligence

Abstract:Dempster-Shafer evidence theory is widely used to deal with uncertainty in intelligent systems. However, the application of this theory is constrained by the failure to balance multiple conflict evidence. The existing studies have primarily focused on investigating similarity of evidence. However, the similarity measurement is highly dependent on the capability of distance functions and will substantially increase the computational complexity. So, the efficient method with acceptable expense should be intensively investigated. In this paper, we propose a new method based on the variance of information entropy to handle the conflict of evidence. First, the fuzzy preference relations based on the variance of information entropy are constructed for multiple pieces of evidence. Next, credible values of alternative evidence are calculated. Finally, according to the Dempster's rule of combination, the weighted average combination result can be obtained. Typical example and several actual data are used to demonstrate that the proposed method is more reasonable than some existing methods both in managing conflict and reducing computational complexity.
A Belief Model for Conflicting and Uncertain Evidence -- Connecting Dempster-Shafer Theory and the Topology of Evidence

Daira Pinto Prieto,Ronald de Haan,Aybüke Özgün

2023-06-06

Abstract:One problem to solve in the context of information fusion, decision-making, and other artificial intelligence challenges is to compute justified beliefs based on evidence. In real-life examples, this evidence may be inconsistent, incomplete, or uncertain, making the problem of evidence fusion highly non-trivial. In this paper, we propose a new model for measuring degrees of beliefs based on possibly inconsistent, incomplete, and uncertain evidence, by combining tools from Dempster-Shafer Theory and Topological Models of Evidence. Our belief model is more general than the aforementioned approaches in two important ways: (1) it can reproduce them when appropriate constraints are imposed, and, more notably, (2) it is flexible enough to compute beliefs according to various standards that represent agents' evidential demands. The latter novelty allows the users of our model to employ it to compute an agent's (possibly) distinct degrees of belief, based on the same evidence, in situations when, e.g, the agent prioritizes avoiding false negatives and when it prioritizes avoiding false positives. Finally, we show that computing degrees of belief with this model is #P-complete in general.

Artificial Intelligence,Multiagent Systems
Against Bell's Theorem

Andrea Aiello

2024-06-16

Abstract:Bell's theorem supposedly demonstrates an irreconcilable conflict between quantum mechanics and local, realistic hidden variable theories. In this paper we show that all experiments that aim to prove Bell's theorem do not actually achieve this goal. Our conclusions are based on a straightforward statistical analysis of the outcomes of these experiments. The key tool in our study is probability theory and, in particular, the concept of sample space for the dichotomic random variables that quantifies the outcomes of such experiments. We also show that an experimental proof of Bell's theorem is not, in principle, impossible, but it would require a completely different experimental apparatus than those commonly used to allegedly achieve this objective. The main consequence of our work is that we cannot dismiss local realistic hidden variable theories on the basis of currently available experimental data.

Quantum Physics
A Novel Method for Combining Conflicting Evidences Based on Relativity among Evidences

Han Ying,Li Kun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/chicc.2016.7554098

2016-01-01

Abstract:Combination of conflict evidences is an important problem need to be solved in the classical D-S evidence theory. Now, there are two ways to improve it, one is two modify its synthesis rule; the other is to modify evidences' body. As the synthesis rule is proved by the rigorous mathematical proof, so the second way seems reasonable. In the current researches, a precondition is given that the lower uncertainty or the higher credibility of evidence standing for the higher reliability of it. But, the uncertainty or the credibility is only measured by the evidence itself, and the relativity among them is ignored. In this paper, we not only consider evidence itself, but also the relativity of it to other evidences. First, the fuzzy similarity measure (FSM) is used to calculate the “Positive Relativity” of the evidences; second, we define a relative ambiguity measure (RAM) to calculate the “Negative Relativity” of the evidences; then, a discount factor (DF) is constructed by the FSM and the RAM to modify the body of evidences; finally, combine each new evidences by the Dempster synthesis rule. The example illustrates the effectiveness of the proposed method.

On the Impossibility of Amalgamating Evidence

Statistics as a Social Activity: Attitudes toward Amalgamating Evidence

Aggregating Credences into Beliefs: Agenda Conditions for Impossibility Results

Evidential Confirmation as Transformed Probability

Logical difficulty from combining counterfactuals in the GHZ-Bell theorems

Locally Solvable Tasks and the Limitations of Valency Arguments

Aggregating individual credences into collective binary beliefs: an impossibility result

Conflict Free Rule for Combining Evidences

Queries on Hempel’s Solution to the Paradoxes of Confirmation

A New Method of Combination Rules of Evidences Based on Concordance Evidences Conflict

Analysis of Conflict Evidence Combination about D-S Evidential Theory

A New and Better Rule for Combining Sharply Conflicting Evidences

The conjunction fallacy: confirmation or relevance?

Combining Conflicting Evidence Using the DEMATEL Method

Impossibility Results in AI: A Survey

ON THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF THE CONVERSE CONSEQUENCE CONDITION AND HEMPELIAN QUALITATIVE CONFIRMATION

Logical Validity and Alethic Pluralism: Two Problems and One Solution

A Novel Method for Combining Conflicting Evidences Based on Information Entropy

A Belief Model for Conflicting and Uncertain Evidence -- Connecting Dempster-Shafer Theory and the Topology of Evidence

Against Bell's Theorem

A Novel Method for Combining Conflicting Evidences Based on Relativity among Evidences