## Abstract

A major difficulty for currently existing theories of inductive inference involves the question of what to do when novel, unknown, or previously unsuspected phenomena occur. In this paper one particular instance of this difficulty is considered, the so-called *sampling of species problem*.

The classical probabilistic theories of inductive inference due to Laplace, Johnson, de Finetti, and Carnap adopt a model of simple enumerative induction in which there are a prespecified number of types or species which may be observed. But, realistically, this is often not the case. In 1838 the English mathematician Augustus De Morgan proposed a modification of the Laplacian model to accommodate situations where the possible types or species to be observed are not assumed to be known in advance; but he did not advance a justification for his solution.

In this paper a general philosophical approach to such problems is suggested, drawing on work of the English mathematician J. F. C. Kingman. It then emerges that the solution advanced by De Morgan has a very deep, if not totally unexpected, justification. The key idea is that although ‘exchangeable’ random *sequences* are the right objects to consider when all possible outcome-types are known in advance, exchangeable random *partitions* are the right objects to consider when they are not. The result turns out to be very satisfying. The classical theory has several basic elements: a representation theorem for the general exchangeable sequence (the de Finetti representation theorem), a distinguished class of sequences (those employing Dirichlet priors), and a corresponding rule of succession (the continuum of inductive methods). The new theory has parallel basic elements: a representation theorem for the general exchangeable random partition (the Kingman representation theorem), a distinguished class of random partitions (the Poisson-Dirichlet process), and a rule of succession which corresponds to De Morgan's rule.

## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

### References

- Aldous, D. J.: 1985, ‘Exchangeability and Related Topics’, in P. L. Hennequin (ed.),
*École d'Été de Probabilités de Saint-Flour XIII — 1983, Lecture Notes in Mathematics***1117**, 1–198.Google Scholar - Antoniak, C. E.: 1974, ‘Mixtures of Dirichlet Processes with Applications to Bayesian Nonparametric Problems’,
*Annals of Statistics***2**, 1152–74.Google Scholar - Bayes, T.: 1764, ‘An Essay Towards Solving a Problem in the Doctrine of Chances’,
*Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London***53**, 370–418 (reprinted: 1958,*Biometrika***45**, 293–315 (page citations in the text are to this edition)).Google Scholar - Blackwell, D. and MacQueen, J. B.: 1973, ‘Ferguson Distributions via Polya Urn Schemes’,
*Annals of Statistics***1**, 353–55.Google Scholar - Carnap, Rudolph: 1950,
*Logical Foundations of Probability*, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar - Carnap, R.: 1980, ‘A Basic System of Inductive Logic, Part II’, in R. C. Jeffrey (ed.),
*Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability*, Vol. 2, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, pp. 7–155.Google Scholar - De Finetti, B.: 1937, ‘La prevision: ses lois logiques, ses sources subjectives’,
*Annales de l'Institut Henri Poincaré***7**, 1–68.Google Scholar - De Morgan, Augustus: 1838,
*An Essay on Probabilities, and on their Application to Life Contingencies and Insurance Offices*, Longman et al., London.Google Scholar - De Morgan, A.: 1845, ‘Theory of Probabilities’, in
*Encyclopedia Metropolitana, Volume 2: Pure Mathematics*, B. Fellowes et al., London, pp. 393–490.Google Scholar - Diaconis, P. and Freedman, D.: 1980, ‘De Finetti's Generalizations of Exchangeability’, in R. C. Jeffrey (ed.),
*Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability*, Vol. 2, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, pp. 233–50.Google Scholar - Donnelly, P.: 1986, ‘Partition Structures, Polya Urns, the Ewens Sampling Formula, and the Ages of Alleles’,
*Theoretical Population Biology***30**, 271–88.Google Scholar - Efron, B. and Thisted, R.: 1976, ‘Estimating the Number of Unseen Species: How Many Words did Shakespeare Know?’,
*Biometrika***63**, 435–47.Google Scholar - Ewens, W. J.: 1972, ‘The Sampling Theory of Selectively Neutral Alleles’,
*Theoretical Population Biology***3**, 87–112.Google Scholar - Feller, William: 1968,
*An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications*, Vol. 1, 3d ed., Wiley, New York.Google Scholar - Fisher, R. A., Corbet, A. S. and Williams, C. B.: 1943, ‘The Relation Between the Number of Species and the Number of Individuals in a Random Sample of an Animal Population’,
*Journal of Animal Ecology***12**, 42–58.Google Scholar - Good, I. J.: 1953, ‘On the Population Frequencies of Species and the Estimation of Population Parameters’,
*Biometrika***40**, 237–64.Google Scholar - Good, I. J. and Toulmin, G. H.: 1956, ‘The Number of New Species, and the Increase in Population Coverage, When a Sample is Increased’,
*Biometrika***43**, 45–63.Google Scholar - Good, I. J.: 1965,
*The Estimation of Probabilities: An Essay on Modern Bayesian Methods*, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar - Good, I. J.: 1979, ‘Turing's Statistical Work in World War II’,
*Biometrika***66**, 393–96.Google Scholar - Hill, B.: 1968, ‘Posterior Distribution of Percentiles: Bayes's Theorem for Sampling from a Finite Population’,
*Journal of the American Statistical Association***63**, 677–91.Google Scholar - Hill, B.: 1970, ‘Zipf's Law and Prior Distributions for the Composition of a Population’,
*Journal of the American Statistical Association***65**, 1220–32.Google Scholar - Hill, B.: 1979, ‘Posterior Moments of the Number of Species in a Finite Population, and the Posterior Probability of Finding a New Species’,
*Journal of the American Statistical Association***74**, 668–73.Google Scholar - Hill, B.: 1988, ‘Parametric Models for A
_{n}: Splitting Processes and Mixtures’, unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar - Hintikka, J. and Niiniluoto, I.: 1980, ‘An Axiomatic Foundation for the Logic of Inductive Generalization’, in R. C. Jeffrey (ed.),
*Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability*, Vol. 2, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, pp. 157–82.Google Scholar - Hoppe, F.: 1984, ‘Polya-Like Urns and the Ewens Sampling Formula’,
*Journal of Mathematical Biology***20**, 91–94.Google Scholar - Hoppe, F.: 1987, ‘The Sampling Theory of Neutral Alleles and an Urn Model in Population Genetics’,
*Journal of Mathematical Biology***25**, 123–59.Google Scholar - Jeffrey, R. C. (ed.): 1980,
*Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability*, Vol. 2, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.Google Scholar - Johnson, William Ernest: 1924,
*Logic, Part III: The Logical Foundations of Science*, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar - Johnson, William Ernest: 1932, ‘Probability: the Deductive and Inductive Problems’,
*Mind***49**, 409–23.Google Scholar - Kingman, J. F. C.: 1975, ‘Random Discrete Distributions’,
*Journal of the Royal Statistical Society***B37**, 1–22.Google Scholar - Kingman, J. F. C.: 1978a, ‘Random Partitions in Population Genetics’,
*Proceedings of the Royal Society***A361**, 1–20.Google Scholar - Kingman, J. F. C.: 1978b, ‘The Representation of Partition Structures’,
*Journal of the London Mathematical Society***18**, 374–80.Google Scholar - Kingman, J. F. C.: 1980,
*The Mathematics of Genetic Diversity*, SIAM, Philadelphia.Google Scholar - Kuipers, T. A. F.: 1973, ‘A Generalization of Carnap's Inductive Logic’,
*Synthese***25**, 334–36.Google Scholar - Kuipers, T. A. F.: 1986, ‘Some Estimates of the Optimum Inductive Method’,
*Erkenntnis***24**, 37–46.Google Scholar - Laplace, P. S., Marquis de: 1781, ‘Mémoire sur les probabilités’,
*Mem. Acad. Sci. Paris 1778*, 227–32 (*Oeuvres complètes*, Vol. 9, pp. 383–485).Google Scholar - Quetelet, A.: 1846,
*Lettres à S.A.R. le Duc Régnant de Saxe-Cobourg et Gotha, sur la théorie des probabilités, appliquée aux sciences morales et politiques*, Hayez, Brussels.Google Scholar - Thisted, R. and Efron, B.: 1987, ‘Did Shakespeare Write a Newly-Discovered Poem?’,
*Biometrika***74**, 445–55.Google Scholar - Zabell, S. L.: 1982, ‘W. E. Johnson's “Sufficientness” Postulate’,
*Annals of Statistics***10**, 1091–99.Google Scholar - Zabell, S. L.: 1988, ‘Symmetry and its Discontents’, in B. Skyrms and W. L. Harper (eds.),
*Causation, Chance, and Credence*, Vol. 1, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 155–90.Google Scholar