A Utility Based Evaluation of Logico-probabilistic Systems
- 128 Downloads
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.
KeywordsProbability logic Ampliative inference Scoring rules
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.Bindel, D., and J. Goodman, Principles of Scientific Computing, Manuscript, 2009.Google Scholar
- 4.Elga A.: Subjective probabilities should be sharp. Philosophers’ Imprint 10, 1–11 (2010)Google Scholar
- 6.Halpern J.Y.: Reasoning about Uncertainty. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (2003)Google Scholar
- 7.Hawthorne J.: On the logic of non-monotonic conditionals and conditional probabilities. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25, 185–218 (1996)Google Scholar
- 9.Knuth D.E.: The Art of Computer Programming, Vol. 2: Seminumerical Algorithms. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1981)Google Scholar
- 14.Pearl J.: Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems, Morgan Kaufmann. Santa Mateo, California (1988)Google Scholar
- 15.Pearl, J., System Z. in Proceedings of Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, Santa Mateo, California, 1990, pp. 21–135.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 22.Unterhuber, M., and G. Schurz, Completeness and correspondence in Chellas–Segerberg Semantics, Studia Logica 102, 2014, this issue.Google Scholar
- 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