Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 634–669 | Cite as

Full conglomerability

  • Enrique Miranda
  • Marco ZaffalonEmail author


We do a thorough mathematical study of the notion of full conglomerability, that is, conglomerability with respect to all the partitions of an infinite possibility space, in the sense considered by Peter Walley. We consider both the cases of precise and imprecise probability (sets of probabilities). We establish relations between conglomerability and countable additivity, continuity, super-additivity, and marginal extension. Moreover, we discuss the special case where a model is conglomerable with respect to a subset of all the partitions, and try to sort out the different notions of conglomerability present in the literature. We conclude that countable additivity, which is routinely used to impose full conglomerability in the precise case, appears to be the most well-behaved way to do so in the imprecise case as well by taking envelopes of countably additive probabilities. Moreover, we characterize these envelopes by means of a number of necessary and sufficient conditions.


Full conglomerability countable additivity continuity marginal extension imprecise probability lower previsions 

AMS Subject Classification

60A05 28A12 60A10 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Armstrong, T. 1990. Conglomerability of probability measures on Boolean algebras. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 150:335–58.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong, T., and K. Prikry. 1982. The semi-metric on a Boolean algebra induced by a finitely additive probability measure. Pacific Journal of Mathematics 99:249–64.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Augustin, T., F. Coolen, G. de Cooman, and M. Troffaes, eds. 2014. Introduction to imprecise Probabilities. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Berti, P., and P. Rigo. 1992. Weak disintegrability as a form of preservation of coherence. Journal of the Italian Statistical Society 1 (2):161–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berti, P., E. Regazzini, and P. Rigo. 1991. Coherent statistical inference and Bayes theorem. The Annals of Statistics 19 (1):366–81.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bogachev, V. 2007. Measure Theory. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cantelli, F. P. 1935. Sulla estensione del principio delle probabilità totali ad una successioni illimitata di eventi incompatibili. Gior. Ist. It. Attuari 6 (4):415–27.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. de Finetti, B. 1930. Sulla proprietà conglomerativa delle probabilità subordinate. Rendiconti del Reale Instituto Lombardo 63:414–18.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. de Finetti, B. 1970. Teoria delle probabilità. Turin, Italy: Einaudi.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. de Finetti, B. 1972. Probability, induction and statistics. London, UK: Wiley.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. de Finetti, B. 1974–1975. Theory of probability: A critical introductory treatment. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. English translation of de Finetti (1970), two volumes.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Denneberg, D. 1994. Non-additive measure and integral. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doria, S. 2011. Coherent upper and lower conditional previsions defined by Hausdorff outer and inner measures. In Modeling, design and simulation of systems with uncertainties, ed. A. Rauth and E. Auer, 175–95. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doria, S. 2015. Symmetric coherent upper conditional prevision defined by the Choquet integral with respect to Hausdorff outer measure. Annals of Operations Research 229 (1):377–96.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dubins, L. E. 1974. On Lebesgue-like extensions of finitely additive measures. Annals of Probability 2:456–63.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dubins, L. E. 1975. Finitely additive conditional probabilities, conglomerability and disintegrations. Annals of Probability 3:88–99.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Joshi, K. D. 1983. Introduction to general topology. New Delhi: New Age International.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Kadane, J. B., M. J. Schervisch, and T. Seidenfeld. 1986. Statistical implications of finitely additive probability. In Bayesian inference and decision techniques, ed. P. K. Goel and A. Zellner, 59–76. New York: Elsevier Science. Reprinted in Seidenfeld et al. (1999, Chapter 2.5).Google Scholar
  19. Krätschmer, V. 2003. When fuzzy measures are upper envelopes of probability measures. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 138:455–68.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miranda, E., and M. Zaffalon. 2010. Notes on desirability and conditional lower previsions. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 60 (3–4):251–309.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Miranda, E., and M. Zaffalon. 2013. Conglomerable coherence. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 54 (9):1322–50.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Miranda, E., and M. Zaffalon. 2015. On the problem of computing the conglomerable natual extension. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 56:1–27.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Miranda, E., M. Zaffalon, and G. de Cooman. 2012. Conglomerable natural extension. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 53 (8):1200–27.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moral, S. 2005. Epistemic irrelevance on sets of desirable gambles. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 45:197–214.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Petturiti, D., and B. Vantaggi. 2017. Envelopes of conditional probabilities extending a strategy and a prior probability. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 81:160–82.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schervisch, M. J., T. Seidenfeld, and J. B. Kadane. 1984. The extent of non-conglomerability of finitely additive probabilities. Zeitschrift fur Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und verwandte Gebiete 66:205–26.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schervisch, M. J., T. Seidenfeld, and J. B. Kadane. 2014. On the equivalence between conglomerability and disintegrability for unbounded random variables. Statistical Methods and Applications. Journal of the Italian Statistical Society 23 (4):501–18.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Seidenfeld, T., M. J. Schervish, and J. B. Kadane. 1998. Non-conglomerability for finite-valued finitely additive probability. Sankhya 60 (3):476–91.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Seidenfeld, T., M. J. Schervish, and J. B. Kadane. 1999. Rethinking the foundations of statistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Seidenfeld, T., M. J. Schervish, and J. B. Kadane. 2013. Two theories of conditional probability and non-conglomerability. In ISIPTA ‘13: Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Imprecise Probability: Theories and Applications, ed. F. Cozman, T. Denœux, S. Destercke, and T. Seidenfeld, 295–302. NJ: Compiègne, France: SIPTA.Google Scholar
  31. Troffaes, M., and G. de Cooman. 2014. Lower previsions. Hoboken, UK: Wiley. 2014.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Ulam, S. 1930. Zur masstheorie in der allgemeinen mengenlehre. Fundamenta Mathematicae 16:140–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Walley, P. 1981. Coherent lower (and upper) probabilities. Statistics Research Report 22, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.Google Scholar
  34. Walley, P. 1991. Statistical reasoning with imprecise probabilities. London, UK: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Williams, P. M. 1975. Notes on conditional previsions. Technical report, School of Mathematical and Physical Science, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK. Reprinted as Williams (2007).Google Scholar
  36. Williams, P. M. 2007. Notes on conditional previsions. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 44:366–83. Revised journal version of Williams (1975).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zaffalon, M., and E. Miranda. 2013. Probability and time. Artificial Intelligence 198 (1):1–51.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Grace Scientific Publishing, 20 Middlefield Ct, Greensboro, NC 27455 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Statistics and Operations ResearchUniversity of OviedoOviedoSpain
  2. 2.Istituto Dalle Molle di Studi sull’Intelligenza Artificiale (IDSIA)LuganoSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations