Studia Logica

, Volume 102, Issue 4, pp 867–890 | Cite as

A Utility Based Evaluation of Logico-probabilistic Systems

  • Paul D. ThornEmail author
  • Gerhard Schurz


Systems of logico-probabilistic (LP) reasoning characterize inference from conditional assertions interpreted as expressing high conditional probabilities. In the present article, we investigate four prominent LP systems (namely, systems O, P, Z, and QC) by means of computer simulations. The results reported here extend our previous work in this area, and evaluate the four systems in terms of the expected utility of the dispositions to act that derive from the conclusions that the systems license. In addition to conforming to the dominant paradigm for assessing the rationality of actions and decisions, our present evaluation complements our previous work, since our previous evaluation may have been too severe in its assessment of inferences to false and uninformative conclusions. In the end, our new results provide additional support for the conclusion that (of the four systems considered) inference by system Z offers the best balance of error avoidance and inferential power. Our new results also suggest that improved performance could be achieved by a modest strengthening of system Z.


Probability logic Ampliative inference Scoring rules 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Adams E.W.: The Logic of Conditionals. Reidel, Dordrecht (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adams E.W.: A note on comparing probabilistic and modal logics of conditionals. Theoria 43, 186–194 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bindel, D., and J. Goodman, Principles of Scientific Computing, Manuscript, 2009.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Elga A.: Subjective probabilities should be sharp. Philosophers’ Imprint 10, 1–11 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goldszmidt M., Pearl J.: Qualitative probabilities for default reasoning, belief revision and causal modeling. Artificial Intelligence 84, 57–112 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Halpern J.Y.: Reasoning about Uncertainty. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hawthorne J.: On the logic of non-monotonic conditionals and conditional probabilities. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25, 185–218 (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hawthorne J., Makinson D.: The quantitative/qualitative watershed for rules of uncertain inference. Studia Logica 86, 247–297 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Knuth D.E.: The Art of Computer Programming, Vol. 2: Seminumerical Algorithms. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1981)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kraus S., Lehmann D., Magidor M.: Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artificial Intelligence 44, 167–207 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lehmann D., Magidor M.: What does a conditional knowledge base entail?. Artificial Intelligence 55, 1–60 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leitgeb H.: Inference on the Low Level. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Paris J. B., Simmonds R.: O is not enough. Review of Symbolic Logic 2, 298–309 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pearl J.: Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems, Morgan Kaufmann. Santa Mateo, California (1988)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pearl, J., System Z. in Proceedings of Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, Santa Mateo, California, 1990, pp. 21–135.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schurz, G., Probabilistic default reasoning based on relevance and irrelevance assumptions, in D. M. Gabbay, R. Kruse, A. Nonnengart, and H. J. Ohlbach (eds.), Qualitative and Quantitative Practical Reasoning, no. 1244 in LNAI, Springer, Berlin, 1997, pp. 536–553.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schurz G., Thorn P.D.: Reward versus risk in uncertain inference: Theorems and Simulations. Review of Symbolic Logic 5, 574–612 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Segerberg K.: Notes on conditional logic. Studia Logica 48, 157–168 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spohn W.: The Laws of Belief: Ranking Theory and Its Philosophical Applications. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Suppes, P., Probabilistic inference and the concept of total evidence, in J. Hintikka, and P. Suppes (eds.), Aspects of Inductive Logic, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1966, pp. 49–65.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Unterhuber M.: Possible Worlds Semantics for Indicative and Counterfactual Conditionals? A Formal-Philosophical Inquiry into Chellas-Segerberg Semantics. Ontos Verlag (Logos Series), Frankfurt (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Unterhuber, M., and G. Schurz, Completeness and correspondence in Chellas–Segerberg Semantics, Studia Logica 102, 2014, this issue.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Williamson, J., Motivating objective Bayesianism: from empirical constraints to objective probabilities, in W. L. Harper, and G. Wheeler (eds.), Probability and Inference: Essays in Honor of Henry E. Kyburg Jr., College Publications, London, 2007, pp. 155–183.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Duesseldorf Center for Logic and Philosophy of Science, Department of PhilosophyUniversity of DuesseldorfDuesseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations