Rejoinder: "On the Birnbaum Argument for the Strong Likelihood Principle"

Deborah G. Mayo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1411.0812

2014-11-04

Methodology

Abstract:Rejoinder of "On the Birnbaum Argument for the Strong Likelihood Principle" by Deborah G. Mayo [arXiv:1302.7021].

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Discussion: On Arguments Concerning Statistical Principles

D. A. S. Fraser

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1411.0809

2014-11-04

Methodology

Abstract:Discussion of "On the Birnbaum Argument for the Strong Likelihood Principle" by Deborah G. Mayo [arXiv:1302.7021].
Discussion of "On the Birnbaum Argument for the Strong Likelihood Principle"

Michael Evans

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1214/14-STS471

2014-11-04

Abstract:We discuss Birnbaum's result, its relevance to statistical reasoning, Mayo's objections and the result in [Electron. J. Statist. 7 (2013) 2645-2655] that the proof of this result doesn't establish what is commonly believed. [<a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="1302.7021" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.7021">arXiv:1302.7021</a>]

Methodology
Robust Bayesianism and Likelihoodism

Conor Mayo-Wilson,Aditya Saraf

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2009.03879

2020-09-08

Statistics Theory

Abstract:We defend a new theory of statistical evidence, which we call Robust Bayesianism (RB). We prove that, under widely accepted assumptions, RB entails the law of likelihood [Royall, 1997], the likelihood principle [Berger and Wolpert, 1988], and a variety of other widely-accepted "statistical principles", e.g., the sufficiency principle [Birnbaum, 1962, 1972] and stopping-rule principle [Berger and Wolpert, 1988]. The main technical contribution of this paper is to extend some of those results to a qualitative framework in which experimenters are justified only in making comparative, non-numerical judgments of the form "A given B is more likely than C given D."
Rejoinder to Article by Berger, Bernardo, and Sun

James O. Berger,Jose M. Bernardo,Dongchu Sun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1214/15-BA943

2015-04-27

Abstract:Rejoinder to Overall Objective Priors by James O. Berger, Jose M. Bernardo, Dongchu Sun [<a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="1504.02689" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1504.02689">arXiv:1504.02689</a>]

Statistics Theory
A note on recent criticisms to Birnbaum's theorem

Víctor Peña,James O. Berger

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1711.08093

2017-11-22

Statistics Theory

Abstract:In this note, we provide critical commentary on two articles that cast doubt on the validity and implications of Birnbaum's theorem: Evans (2013) and Mayo (2014). In our view, the proof is correct and the consequences of the theorem are alive and well.
On Rational Jurisprudence: A Problem in Bayesian Confirmation Theory

Reid Dale

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2209.12896

2022-09-24

History and Overview

Abstract:This paper is concerned with the epistemic question of confirming a hypothesis -- the guilt of a defendant -- by way of testimony heard by a juror over the course of an American-style criminal trial. In it, I attempt to settle a dispute between two strands of the legal community over the issue of whether the methods of Bayesian rationality are incompatible with jurisprudential principles such as the Presumption of Innocence. To this end, I prove a representation theorem that shows that so long as a juror would not convict the defendant having heard no testimony (the Presumption of Innocence) but would convict upon hearing some collection of testimony (Willingness to Convict), then this juror's disposition to convict the defendant is representable as the disposition of a Bayesian threshold juror in Posner's sense. This result indicates that relevant notion of a Bayesian threshold juror is insufficiently specified to render this debate a substantive one.
On particle acceleration and trapping by Poynting flux dominated flows

Gunnar Paesold,Eric G. Blackman,Peter Messmer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/47/11/005

2005-08-25

Abstract:Using particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations, we study the evolution of a strongly magnetized plasma slab propagating into a finite density ambient medium. Like previous work, we find that the slab breaks into discrete magnetic pulses. The subsequent evolution is consistent with diamagnetic relativistic pulse acceleration of \cite{liangetal2003}. Unlike previous work, we use the actual electron to proton mass ratio and focus on understanding trapping vs. transmission of the ambient plasma by the pulses and on the particle acceleration spectra. We find that the accelerated electron distribution internal to the slab develops a double-power law. We predict that emission from reflected/trapped external electrons will peak after that of the internal electrons. We also find that the thin discrete pulses trap ambient electrons but allow protons to pass through, resulting in less drag on the pulse than in the case of trapping of both species. Poynting flux dominated scenarios have been proposed as the driver of relativistic outflows and particle acceleration in the most powerful astrophysical jets.

Astrophysics,Plasma Physics
Juror understanding of the weight of evidence presented as a likelihood ratio and the impact on the deliberative process: a response to Buckleton, et al.

Bess Stiffelman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2020.102454

2021-03-01

Abstract:<p>This is a brief response to the critique of my previous article, No Longer the Gold Standard: Probabilistic Genotyping is Changing the Nature of DNA Evidence in Criminal Trials, 24 Berkeley J. Crim. L. 110 (2019). The critique of my article was published earlier this year in this journal. I address both criticisms and misunderstandings of my arguments in an effort to frame the concerns of the criminal defense community about the impact of probabilistic genotyping on the deliberative process.</p>
Comments on Struyve and Baere's paper on experiments to distinguish Bohmian mechanics from quantum mechanics

Partha Ghose

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/0208192

2002-08-30

Abstract:It is shown in detail why the arguments put forward by Struyve and Baere (<a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="quant-ph/0108038" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0108038">quant-ph/0108038</a>) against my conclusions are incorrect.

Quantum Physics
A pragmatic account of the weak evidence effect

Samuel A. Barnett,Thomas L. Griffiths,Robert D. Hawkins

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2112.03799

2022-09-14

Abstract:Language is not only used to transmit neutral information; we often seek to persuade by arguing in favor of a particular view. Persuasion raises a number of challenges for classical accounts of belief updating, as information cannot be taken at face value. How should listeners account for a speaker's "hidden agenda" when incorporating new information? Here, we extend recent probabilistic models of recursive social reasoning to allow for persuasive goals and show that our model provides a pragmatic account for why weakly favorable arguments may backfire, a phenomenon known as the weak evidence effect. Critically, this model predicts a systematic relationship between belief updates and expectations about the information source: weak evidence should only backfire when speakers are expected to act under persuasive goals and prefer the strongest evidence. We introduce a simple experimental paradigm called the Stick Contest to measure the extent to which the weak evidence effect depends on speaker expectations, and show that a pragmatic listener model accounts for the empirical data better than alternative models. Our findings suggest further avenues for rational models of social reasoning to illuminate classical decision-making phenomena.

Computation and Language
Rejoinder: Struggles with Survey Weighting and Regression Modeling

Andrew Gelman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1214/088342307000000203

2007-10-26

Abstract:Rejoinder: Struggles with Survey Weighting and Regression Modeling [<a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="0710.5005" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/0710.5005">arXiv:0710.5005</a>]

Methodology
In Defence of Pigou–Dalton for Chances

H. Orri Stefánsson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s095382082300016x

2023-08-24

Utilitas

Abstract:I defend a weak version of the Pigou–Dalton principle for chances. The principle says that it is better to increase the survival chance of a person who is more likely to die rather than a person who is less likely to die, assuming that the two people do not differ in any other morally relevant respect. The principle justifies plausible moral judgements that standard ex post views, such as prioritarianism and rank-dependent egalitarianism, cannot accommodate. However, the principle can be justified by the same reasoning that has recently been used to defend the core axiom of ex post prioritarianism and egalitarianism, namely, Pigou–Dalton for well-being. The arguably biggest challenge for proponents of Pigou–Dalton for chances is that it violates state dominance for social prospects. However, I argue that we have independent reason for rejecting state dominance for social prospects, since it prevents a social planner from properly respecting people's preferences.
Rejoinder on Causal Inference Through Potential Outcomes and Principal Stratification: Application to Studies with ``Censoring'' Due to Death by D. B. Rubin

Donald B. Rubin

2008-01-01

Abstract:It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to respond to these three complementary discussions written by Edward L. Korn (ELK), Paul R. Rosenbaum (PRR) and Stephen E. Fienberg (SEF), each of whom has made substantial contributions to problems of causal inference. Thanks to all three for the generosity expressed in their comments. I am in agreement with many points raised by them, but there are a few places where we may not fully agree, possibly due to misunderstandings.
Reexamining the Relative Agreement Model of Opinion Dynamics.

Michael Meadows,Dave Cliff

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.2083

2012-01-01

Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation

Abstract:We present a brief history of models of opinion dynamics in groups of agents, and summarise work from the creation of the Bounded Confidence model (Krause 2000; Hegselmann and Krause 2002) through to the more recent development of the Relative Agreement (RA) model (Deffuant et al. 2002; Deffuant 2006). In the RA model, randomly-selected pairs of agents interact, expressing their opinions and their confidence in those opinions; and each agent then updates their own opinion on the basis of the new information. The two seminal RA papers (Deffuant et al. 2002, Deffuant 2006), both published in JASSS, each present simulation results from the RA model that we have attempted to independently replicate. We have surveyed over 150 papers that cite Deffuant et al. 2002, yet have found no prior independent replications of the key empirical results for the RA model presented in the 2002 paper. We have each written a separate implementation of the RA model (one in Java, one in Python, both published in full as appendices to this paper) which we therefore believe to be the first independent replications of the RA model as published in the 2002 JASSS paper. We find that both our implementations of the RA model generate results that are in good agreement with each other, but both of which differ very significantly from those presented by Deffuant et al.. Our results are presented along with an analysis and discussion where we argue from first principles that our results are more plausible than those published in the 2002 JASSS paper. We close with discussion of the relevance of this model, along with future applicability.
Refutation of Richard Gill's Argument Against my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Joy Christian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1203.2529

2020-02-18

Abstract:I identify a number of errors in Richard Gill's purported refutation (<a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="1203.1504" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.1504">arXiv:1203.1504</a>) of my disproof of Bell's theorem. In particular, I point out that his central argument is based, not only on a rather trivial misreading of my counterexample to Bell's theorem, but also on a simple oversight of a freedom of choice in the orientation of a Clifford algebra. What is innovative and original in my counterexample is thus mistaken for an error, at the expense of the professed universality and generality of Bell's theorem.

Quantum Physics
Hindman's Theorem in the hierarchy of Choice Principles

David J. Fernández-Bretón

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219061323500022

2023-07-22

Abstract:In the context of $\mathsf{ZF}$, we analyze a version of Hindman's finite unions theorem on infinite sets, which normally requires the Axiom of Choice to be proved. We establish the implication relations between this statement and various classical weak choice principles, thus precisely locating the strength of the statement as a weak form of the $\mathsf{AC}$.

Logic
Comment ignoring nonignorable effects: rejoinder

Thomas R Belin,Gregg J Diffendal,Steve Mack,Donald B Rubin,Joseph L Schafer,Alan M Zaslavsky

IF: 4.369

1993-01-01

Journal of the American Statistical Association

Abstract:Professors Little and Wachter have provided provocative and challenging discussions of our work, and we appreciate their insights and comments. We hope this rejoinder helps build consensus on issues related to our work, in particular the role of nonignorable modeling. We agree with Little that much scientific progress has been made in the past decade in addressing the census undercount problem; in particular, we now have an apparent consensus that" any sensible adjustment method should minimally condition on the match-code information. In other words, complete-case analysis is flawed in this context and should not be included in an assessment of model uncertainty." We are pleased to see that Wachter's comments do not dissent from this view, because earlier (Wachter 1983) he proposed that ignoring match-code group was a reasonable alternative.
Discounting testimony with the argument ad hominem and a Bayesian congruent prior model.

Jaydeep-Singh Bhatia,Mike Oaksford

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000151

2015-01-01

Abstract:When directed to ignore evidence of a witness's previous bad character because of a violation of the rules of evidence, are jurors' beliefs still affected? The intuition is that they will be because in everyday argumentation, fallacies, like the ad hominem, are effective argumentative strategies. An ad hominem argument (against the person) undermines a conclusion by questioning the character of the proposer. This intuition divides current theories of argumentation. According to pragmadialectical theory (e.g., Van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004), procedural rules exactly like the rules of evidence are part of our cognitive resources for evaluating arguments. If one of these rules is violated, an argument should be treated as a fallacy and so it should not alter someone's belief in the conclusion. Some recent experiments investigating how reasonable these arguments are perceived to be seem to support this account (van Eemeren, Garssen, & Meuffels, 2009). These experiments are critiqued from the perspective of the relevance (Walton, 2009, 2010) and epistemic (Hahn & Oaksford, 2006, 2007; Oaksford & Hahn, 2004) approaches to argumentation. An experiment investigates the predictions of these approaches for a graded belief change version of van Eemeren et al.'s (2009) experiment, and the results are modeled using a Bayesian congruent prior model. These results cannot be explained by the pragmadialectical approach and show that in everyday argument people are extremely sensitive to the epistemic relevance of evidence. Moreover, it seems highly unlikely that this can be switched off in more formal contexts such as the courtroom.
New normative standards of conditional reasoning and the dual-source model

Henrik Singmann,Karl Christoph Klauer,David Over

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00316

IF: 3.8

2014-04-17

Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract:There has been a major shift in research on human reasoning toward Bayesian and probabilistic approaches, which has been called a new paradigm. The new paradigm sees most everyday and scientific reasoning as taking place in a context of uncertainty, and inference is from uncertain beliefs and not from arbitrary assumptions. In this manuscript we present an empirical test of normative standards in the new paradigm using a novel probabilized conditional reasoning task. Our results indicated that for everyday conditional with at least a weak causal connection between antecedent and consequent only the conditional probability of the consequent given antecedent contributes unique variance to predicting the probability of conditional, but not the probability of the conjunction, nor the probability of the material conditional. Regarding normative accounts of reasoning, we found significant evidence that participants' responses were confidence preserving (i.e., p-valid in the sense of Adams, 1998) for MP inferences, but not for MT inferences. Additionally, only for MP inferences and to a lesser degree for DA inferences did the rate of responses inside the coherence intervals defined by mental probability logic (Pfeifer and Kleiter, 2005, 2010) exceed chance levels. In contrast to the normative accounts, the dual-source model (Klauer et al., 2010) is a descriptive model. It posits that participants integrate their background knowledge (i.e., the type of information primary to the normative approaches) and their subjective probability that a conclusion is seen as warranted based on its logical form. Model fits showed that the dual-source model, which employed participants' responses to a deductive task with abstract contents to estimate the form-based component, provided as good an account of the data as a model that solely used data from the probabilized conditional reasoning task.

psychology, multidisciplinary
Reply to "Comment on `Weak values and the past of a quantum particle' ''

Jonte R Hance,John Rarity,James Ladyman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.048002

2023-11-09

Abstract:We here reply to a recent comment by Vaidman [\href{<a class="link-external link-https" href="https://journals.aps.org/prresearch/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.048001" rel="external noopener nofollow">this https URL</a>}{Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 048001 (2023)}] on our paper [\href{<a class="link-external link-https" href="https://journals.aps.org/prresearch/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.023048" rel="external noopener nofollow">this https URL</a>}{Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023048 (2023)}]. In his Comment, Vaidman first admits that he is just defining (assuming) the weak trace gives the presence of a particle -- however, in this case, he should use a term other than presence, as this already has a separate, intuitive meaning other than ``where a weak trace is''. Despite this admission, Vaidman then goes on to argue for this definition by appeal to ideas around an objectively-existing idea of presence. We show these appeals rely on their own conclusion -- that there is always a matter of fact about the location of a quantum particle.

Quantum Physics,History and Philosophy of Physics

Rejoinder: "On the Birnbaum Argument for the Strong Likelihood Principle"

Discussion: On Arguments Concerning Statistical Principles

Discussion of "On the Birnbaum Argument for the Strong Likelihood Principle"

Robust Bayesianism and Likelihoodism

Rejoinder to Article by Berger, Bernardo, and Sun

A note on recent criticisms to Birnbaum's theorem

On Rational Jurisprudence: A Problem in Bayesian Confirmation Theory

On particle acceleration and trapping by Poynting flux dominated flows

Juror understanding of the weight of evidence presented as a likelihood ratio and the impact on the deliberative process: a response to Buckleton, et al.

Comments on Struyve and Baere's paper on experiments to distinguish Bohmian mechanics from quantum mechanics

A pragmatic account of the weak evidence effect

Rejoinder: Struggles with Survey Weighting and Regression Modeling

In Defence of Pigou–Dalton for Chances

Rejoinder on Causal Inference Through Potential Outcomes and Principal Stratification: Application to Studies with ``Censoring'' Due to Death by D. B. Rubin

Reexamining the Relative Agreement Model of Opinion Dynamics.

Refutation of Richard Gill's Argument Against my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Hindman's Theorem in the hierarchy of Choice Principles

Comment ignoring nonignorable effects: rejoinder

Discounting testimony with the argument ad hominem and a Bayesian congruent prior model.

New normative standards of conditional reasoning and the dual-source model

Reply to "Comment on `Weak values and the past of a quantum particle' ''