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].

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

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].
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
Connections between statistical practice in elementary particle physics and the severity concept as discussed in Mayo's Statistical Inference as Severe Testing

Robert D. Cousins

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2002.09713

2020-02-22

Other Statistics

Abstract:For many years, philosopher-of-statistics Deborah Mayo has been advocating the concept of severe testing as a key part of hypothesis testing. Her recent book, Statistical Inference as Severe Testing, is a comprehensive exposition of her arguments in the context of a historical study of many threads of statistical inference, both frequentist and Bayesian. Her foundational point of view is called error statistics, emphasizing frequentist evaluation of the errors called Type I and Type II in the Neyman-Pearson theory of frequentist hypothesis testing. Since the field of elementary particle physics (also known as high energy physics) has strong traditions in frequentist inference, one might expect that something like the severity concept was independently developed in the field. Indeed, I find that, at least operationally (numerically), we high-energy physicists have long interpreted data in ways that map directly onto severity. Whether or not we subscribe to Mayo's philosophical interpretations of severity is a more complicated story that I do not address here.
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."
A Bayesian Approach to Forward and Inverse Abstract Argumentation Problems

Hiroyuki Kido,Beishui Liao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/11663081.2022.2144830

2022-01-01

Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics

Abstract:This paper studies a fundamental mechanism by which conflicts between arguments are drawn from sentiments regarding acceptability of the arguments. Given sets of arguments, an inverse abstract argumentation problem seeks attack relations between arguments such that acceptability semantics interprets each argument in the sets of arguments as being acceptable in each of the attack relations. It is an inverse problem of the traditional problem we refer to as the forward abstract argumentation problem. Given an attack relation, the forward abstract argumentation problem seeks sets of arguments such that acceptability semantics interprets each argument in the sets of arguments as being acceptable in the attack relation. We give a probabilistic model of argumentation-theoretic inference. It is a generative model formalising the process by which acceptability semantics interprets acceptability of arguments in a given attack relation. We show that it gives a broad view of solutions to the forward and inverse abstract argumentation problems. Specifically, solutions to the inverse and forward abstract argumentation problems are shown to be equivalent to a maximum likelihood estimate and maximum likelihood prediction, respectively, which are both available with the generative model. In addition, they are shown to be special cases of the posterior distribution and the evidence, respectively, which are both obtained by probabilistic inference on the generative model. We report an experiment result and application example of the generative model in the inverse problems.
Subtleties in Bayesian decision-theoretic analysis for forensic findings: Notes on recent discussion of the role of validation study data in rational decision making

Alex Biedermann

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2024.100548

2024-08-31

Abstract:This technical note extends a recent discussion in this journal of the role of validation study data in rational decision making. One argument that has been made in this context, using elements of Bayesian decision theory, is that further aggregation of validation study data into error rates involves a loss of information that compromises rational inference and decision making and should therefore be discouraged. This technical note seeks to explain that this argument can be developed at different levels of detail, depending on the definition of the propositions of interest, the forensic findings to be evaluated (and hence the form of the likelihood ratio), and the characterization of the relative desirability of decision consequences. The analyses proposed here reveal the cascade of abstractions and assumptions into which discussions about the use of validation study results in forensic science have fallen. This reinforces the conclusion that further aggregation of validation study data into error rates is problematic. It also suggests that even if a definition of error rate(s) could be agreed upon and defensively quantified in a given application, we should rethink and possibly adjust our expectations about what exactly error rates can practically contribute to rational modes of reasoning and decision making in legal contexts.
Bayes, Jeffreys, Prior Distributions and the Philosophy of Statistics

Andrew Gelman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1214/09-STS284D

2010-01-18

Abstract:Discussion of "Harold Jeffreys's Theory of Probability revisited," by Christian Robert, Nicolas Chopin, and Judith Rousseau, for Statistical Science [<a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="0804.3173" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/0804.3173">arXiv:0804.3173</a>]

Methodology
A Bayesian Approach to Direct and Inverse Abstract Argumentation Problems

Kido Hiroyuki,Liao Beishui

2019-01-01

Abstract: This paper studies a fundamental mechanism of how to detect a conflict between arguments given sentiments regarding acceptability of the arguments. We introduce a concept of the inverse problem of the abstract argumentation to tackle the problem. Given noisy sets of acceptable arguments, it aims to find attack relations explaining the sets well in terms of acceptability semantics. It is the inverse of the direct problem corresponding to the traditional problem of the abstract argumentation that focuses on finding sets of acceptable arguments in terms of the semantics given an attack relation between the arguments. We give a probabilistic model handling both of the problems in a way that is faithful to the acceptability semantics. From a theoretical point of view, we show that a solution to both the direct and inverse problems is a special case of the probabilistic inference on the model. We discuss that the model provides a natural extension of the semantics to cope with uncertain attack relations distributed probabilistically. From en empirical point of view, we argue that it reasonably predicts individuals sentiments regarding acceptability of arguments. This paper contributes to lay the foundation for making acceptability semantics data-driven and to provide a way to tackle the knowledge acquisition bottleneck.
Conditional probability and improper priors

Gunnar Taraldsen,Bo H. Lindqvist

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03610926.2014.935430

2020-06-08

Abstract:The purpose of this paper is to present a mathematical theory that can be used as a foundation for statistics that include improper priors. This theory includes improper laws in the initial axioms and has in particular Bayes theorem as a consequence. Another consequence is that some of the usual calculation rules are modified. This is important in relation to common statistical practice which usually include improper priors, but tends to use unaltered calculation rules. In some cases the results are valid, but in other cases inconsistencies may appear. The famous marginalization paradoxes exemplify this latter case. An alternative mathematical theory for the foundations of statistics can be formulated in terms of conditional probability spaces. In this case the appearance of improper laws is a consequence of the theory. It is proved here that the resulting mathematical structures for the two theories are equivalent. The conclusion is that the choice of the first or the second formulation for the initial axioms can be considered a matter of personal preference. Readers that initially have concerns regarding improper priors can possibly be more open toward a formulation of the initial axioms in terms of conditional probabilities. The interpretation of an improper law is given by the corresponding conditional probabilities. Keywords: Axioms of statistics, Conditional probability space, Improper prior, Projective space

Statistics Theory
Error and inference: an outsider stand on a frequentist philosophy

Christian P. Robert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-012-9298-3

2012-03-30

Theory and Decision

Abstract:This paper is an extended review of the book Error and Inference, edited by Deborah Mayo and Aris Spanos, about their frequentist and philosophical perspective on testing of hypothesis and on the criticisms of alternatives like the Bayesian approach.

economics,social sciences, mathematical methods
A Principle-Based Robustness Analysis of Admissibility-Based Argumentation Semantics

Tjitze Rienstra,Chiaki Sakama,Leendert van der Torre,Beishui Liao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/aac-200520

2020-01-01

Argument & Computation

Abstract:The principle-based approach is a methodology to classify and analyse argumentation semantics. In this paper we classify seven of the main alternatives for argumentation semantics using a set of new robustness principles. These principles complement Baroni and Giacomin’s original classification and deal with the behaviour of a semantics when the argumentation framework changes due to the addition or removal of an attack between two arguments. We distinguish so-called persistence principles and monotonicity principles, where the former deal with the question of whether a labelling or extension of an argumentation framework under a given semantics persists after a change, and the latter with the question of whether new labellings or extensions are created after a change. We furthermore show in which sense labelling-based and extension-based semantics lead to subtly different principles and results. Our results can be used for choosing a semantics for a particular application, or to guide the search for new argumentation semantics, but they have been used also in the design of algorithms.
Discussion of: Bayesian views of an archaeological find

Joseph B. Kadane

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0804.0102

2008-04-01

Applications

Abstract:Discussion of ``Statistical analysis of an archeological find'' by Andrey Feuerverger [arXiv:0804.0079]
Possibility-theoretic statistical inference offers performance and probativeness assurances

Leonardo Cella,Ryan Martin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2023.109060

2023-07-26

Abstract:Statisticians are largely focused on developing methods that perform well in a frequentist sense -- even the Bayesians. But the widely-publicized replication crisis suggests that these performance guarantees alone are not enough to instill confidence in scientific discoveries. In addition to reliably detecting hypotheses that are (in)compatible with data, investigators require methods that can probe for hypotheses that are actually supported by the data. In this paper, we demonstrate that valid inferential models (IMs) achieve both performance and probativeness properties and we offer a powerful new result that ensures the IM's probing is reliable. We also compare and contrast the IM's dual performance and probativeness abilities with that of Deborah Mayo's severe testing framework.

Statistics Theory,Methodology,Other Statistics
Probabilistic Argumentation Frameworks: Basic Properties and Computation

Pierpaolo Dondio

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38061-7_26

2013-01-01

Abstract:In this paper we analyze probabilistic argumentation frameworks PAF, defined as an extension of Dung abstract framework in which each argument n is asserted with a probability pn and where an argumentation semantics is used to compute arguments’ status. We start by extending recent definitions of PAF removing the hypothesis of arguments independence, extending the computation to preferred semantics and defining the distribution of various probabilities induced over arguments acceptability status. We then prove some basic properties linking grounded and preferred PAF and we describe the first algorithm to compute the probability of acceptance of each argument. We end our work with an application of PAF to legal reasoning.
Explaining Arguments' Strength: Unveiling the Role of Attacks and Supports (Technical Report)

Xiang Yin,Potyka Nico,Francesca Toni

2024-05-11

Abstract:Quantitatively explaining the strength of arguments under gradual semantics has recently received increasing attention. Specifically, several works in the literature provide quantitative explanations by computing the attribution scores of arguments. These works disregard the importance of attacks and supports, even though they play an essential role when explaining arguments' strength. In this paper, we propose a novel theory of Relation Attribution Explanations (RAEs), adapting Shapley values from game theory to offer fine-grained insights into the role of attacks and supports in quantitative bipolar argumentation towards obtaining the arguments' strength. We show that RAEs satisfy several desirable properties. We also propose a probabilistic algorithm to approximate RAEs efficiently. Finally, we show the application value of RAEs in fraud detection and large language models case studies.

Artificial Intelligence
A discussion of "Bayesian model selection based on proper scoring rules" by A.P. Dawid and M. Musio

Clara Grazian,Ilaria Masiani,Christian P. Robert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1502.07638

2015-02-27

Abstract:This note is a discussion of the article "Bayesian model selection based on proper scoring rules" by A.P. Dawid and M. Musio, to appear in Bayesian Analysis. While appreciating the concepts behind the use of proper scoring rules, including the inclusion of improper priors, we point out here some possible practical difficulties with the advocated approach.

Methodology
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.
Defence Against the Modern Arts: the Curse of Statistics "Score-based likelihood ratios"

Cedric Neumann,Madeline A. Ausdemore

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1910.05240

2019-10-11

Abstract:For several decades, legal and scientific scholars have argued that conclusions from forensic examinations should be supported by statistical data and reported within a probabilistic framework. Multiple models have been proposed to quantify the probative value of forensic evidence. Unfortunately, several of these models rely on ad-hoc strategies that are not scientifically sound. The opacity of the technical jargon used to present these models and their results, and the complexity of the techniques involved make it very difficult for the untrained user to separate the wheat from the chaff. This series of papers is intended to help forensic scientists and lawyers recognise limitations and issues in tools proposed to interpret the results of forensic examinations. This paper focuses on tools that have been proposed to leverage the use of similarity scores to assess the probative value of forensic findings. We call this family of tools "score-based likelihood ratios". In this paper, we present the fundamental concepts on which these tools are built, we describe some specific members of this family of tools, and we explore their convergence to the Bayes factor through an intuitive geometrical approach and through simulations. Finally, we discuss their validation and their potential usefulness as a decision-making tool in forensic science.

Applications
Thomas Bayes's Bayesian Inference

Stephen M. Stigler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2981538

1982-01-01

Abstract:We reconsider Thomas Bayes's famous Scholium—his argument in defence of an a priori uniform distribution for an unknown probability, and argue that critics (R. A. Fisher) and friends (Karl Pearson, Harold Jeffreys) alike have misinterpreted the argument as an appeal to the principle of insufficient reason, and that Bayes's actual argument is free from the principal defect it has been charged with. True “Bayesian Inference” is found to differ considerably from and perhaps be logically preferable to modern perceptions of it.

Discussion: On Arguments Concerning Statistical Principles

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

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

Connections between statistical practice in elementary particle physics and the severity concept as discussed in Mayo's Statistical Inference as Severe Testing

Robust Bayesianism and Likelihoodism

A Bayesian Approach to Forward and Inverse Abstract Argumentation Problems

Subtleties in Bayesian decision-theoretic analysis for forensic findings: Notes on recent discussion of the role of validation study data in rational decision making

Bayes, Jeffreys, Prior Distributions and the Philosophy of Statistics

A Bayesian Approach to Direct and Inverse Abstract Argumentation Problems

Conditional probability and improper priors

Error and inference: an outsider stand on a frequentist philosophy

A Principle-Based Robustness Analysis of Admissibility-Based Argumentation Semantics

Discussion of: Bayesian views of an archaeological find

Possibility-theoretic statistical inference offers performance and probativeness assurances

Probabilistic Argumentation Frameworks: Basic Properties and Computation

Explaining Arguments' Strength: Unveiling the Role of Attacks and Supports (Technical Report)

A discussion of "Bayesian model selection based on proper scoring rules" by A.P. Dawid and M. Musio

A note on recent criticisms to Birnbaum's theorem

On Rational Jurisprudence: A Problem in Bayesian Confirmation Theory

Defence Against the Modern Arts: the Curse of Statistics "Score-based likelihood ratios"

Thomas Bayes's Bayesian Inference