It is a familiar argument that advocates accommodating the so-called paradoxes of decision theory by abandoning the “independence” postulate. After all, if we grant that choice reveals preference, the anomalous choice patterns of the Allais and Ellsberg problems violate postulate P2 of Savage's system. The strategy of making room for new preference patterns by relaxing independence is adopted in each of the following works: Samuelson, Kahneman and Tversky's “Prospect Theory”, Allais and Hagen, Fishburn, Chew and MacCrimmon, McClennen, and in closely (...) argued essays by Machina. (shrink)

We discuss several features of coherent choice functions—where the admissible options in a decision problem are exactly those that maximize expected utility for some probability/utility pair in fixed set S of probability/utility pairs. In this paper we consider, primarily, normal form decision problems under uncertainty—where only the probability component of S is indeterminate and utility for two privileged outcomes is determinate. Coherent choice distinguishes between each pair of sets of probabilities regardless the “shape” or “connectedness” of the sets of probabilities. (...) We axiomatize the theory of choice functions and show these axioms are necessary for coherence. The axioms are sufficient for coherence using a set of probability/almost-state-independent utility pairs. We give sufficient conditions when a choice function satisfying our axioms is represented by a set of probability/state-independent utility pairs with a common utility. (shrink)

This essay is, primarily, a discussion of four results about the principle of maximizing entropy (MAXENT) and its connections with Bayesian theory. Result 1 provides a restricted equivalence between the two: where the Bayesian model for MAXENT inference uses an "a priori" probability that is uniform, and where all MAXENT constraints are limited to 0-1 expectations for simple indicator-variables. The other three results report on an inability to extend the equivalence beyond these specialized constraints. Result 2 established a sensitivity of (...) MAXENT inference to the choice of the algebra of possibilities even though all empirical constraints imposed on the MAXENT solution are satisfied in each measure space considered. The resulting MAXENT distribution is not invariant over the choice of measure space. Thus, old and familiar problems with the Laplacian principle of Insufficient Reason also plague MAXENT theory. Result 3 builds upon the findings of Friedman and Shimony (1971; 1973) and demonstrates the absence of an exchangeable, Bayesian model for predictive MAXENT distributions when the MAXENT constraints are interpreted according to Jaynes's (1978) prescription for his (1963) Brandeis Dice problem. Lastly, Result 4 generalizes the Friedman and Shimony objection to cross-entropy (Kullback-information) shifts subject to a constraint of a new odds-ratio for two disjoint events. (shrink)

We review de Finetti’s two coherence criteria for determinate probabilities: coherence1defined in terms of previsions for a set of events that are undominated by the status quo – previsions immune to a sure-loss – and coherence2 defined in terms of forecasts for events undominated in Brier score by a rival forecast. We propose a criterion of IP-coherence2 based on a generalization of Brier score for IP-forecasts that uses 1-sided, lower and upper, probability forecasts. However, whereas Brier score is a strictly (...) proper scoring rule for eliciting determinate probabilities, we show that there is no real-valuedstrictly proper IP-score. Nonetheless, with respect to either of two decision rules – Γ-maximin or E-admissibility-+-Γ-maximin – we give a lexicographic strictly proper IP-scoring rule that is based on Brier score. (shrink)

For Savage (1954) as for de Finetti (1974), the existence of subjective (personal) probability is a consequence of the normative theory of preference. (De Finetti achieves the reduction of belief to desire with his generalized Dutch-Book argument for Previsions.) Both Savage and de Finetti rebel against legislating countable additivity for subjective probability. They require merely that probability be finitely additive. Simultaneously, they insist that their theories of preference are weak, accommodating all but self-defeating desires. In this paper we dispute these (...) claims by showing that the following three cannot simultaneously hold: (i) Coherent belief is reducible to rational preference, i.e. the generalized Dutch-Book argument fixes standards of coherence. (ii) Finitely additive probability is coherent. (iii) Admissible preference structures may be free of consequences, i.e. they may lack prizes whose values are robust against all contingencies. (shrink)

Can there be good reasons for judging one set of probabilistic assertions more reliable than a second? There are many candidates for measuring "goodness" of probabilistic forecasts. Here, I focus on one such aspirant: calibration. Calibration requires an alignment of announced probabilities and observed relative frequency, e.g., 50 percent of forecasts made with the announced probability of.5 occur, 70 percent of forecasts made with probability.7 occur, etc. To summarize the conclusions: (i) Surveys designed to display calibration curves, from which a (...) recalibration is to be calculated, are useless without due consideration for the interconnections between questions (forecasts) in the survey. (ii) Subject to feedback, calibration in the long run is otiose. It gives no ground for validating one coherent opinion over another as each coherent forecaster is (almost) sure of his own long-run calibration. (iii) Calibration in the short run is an inducement to hedge forecasts. A calibration score, in the short run, is improper. It gives the forecaster reason to feign violation of total evidence by enticing him to use the more predictable frequencies in a larger finite reference class than that directly relevant. (shrink)

De Finetti introduced the concept of coherent previsions and conditional previsions through a gambling argument and through a parallel argument based on a quadratic scoring rule. He shows that the two arguments lead to the same concept of coherence. When dealing with events only, there is a rich class of scoring rules which might be used in place of the quadratic scoring rule. We give conditions under which a general strictly proper scoring rule can replace the quadratic scoring rule while (...) preserving the equivalence of de Finetti’s two arguments. In proving our results, we present a strengthening of the usual minimax theorem. We also present generalizations of de Finetti’s fundamental theorem of prevision to deal with conditional previsions. (shrink)

Let κ be an uncountable cardinal. Using the theory of conditional probability associated with de Finetti and Dubins, subject to several structural assumptions for creating sufficiently many measurable sets, and assuming that κ is not a weakly inaccessible cardinal, we show that each probability that is not κ-­additive has conditional probabilities that fail to be conglomerable in a partition of cardinality no greater than κ. This generalizes our result, where we established that each finite but not countably additive probability has (...) conditional probabilities that fail to be conglomerable in some countable partition. (shrink)

We review several of de Finetti’s fundamental contributions where these have played and continue to play an important role in the development of imprecise probability research. Also, we discuss de Finetti’s few, but mostly critical remarks about the prospects for a theory of imprecise probabilities, given the limited development of imprecise probability theory as that was known to him.

This paper has two main parts. In the first part, we motivate a kind of indeterminate, suppositional credences by discussing the prospect for a subjective interpretation of a causal Bayesian network, an important tool for causal reasoning in artificial intelligence. A CBN consists of a causal graph and a collection of interventional probabilities. The subjective interpretation in question would take the causal graph in a CBN to represent the causal structure that is believed by an agent, and interventional probabilities in (...) a CBN to represent suppositional credences. We review a difficulty noted in the literature with such an interpretation, and suggest that a natural way to address the challenge is to go for a generalization of CBN that allows indeterminate credences. In the second part, we develop a decision-theoretic foundation for such indeterminate suppositional credences, by generalizing a theory of coherent choice functions to accommodate some form of act-state dependence. The upshot is a decision-theoretic framework that is not only rich enough to, so to speak, ground the probabilities in a subjectively interpreted causal network, but also interesting in its own right, in that it accommodates both act-state dependence and imprecise probabilities. (shrink)

The "traditional" view of normative decision theory, as reported (for example) in chapter 2 of Luce and RaiÃa's [1957] classic work, Games and Decisions, proposes a reduction of sequential decisions problems to non-sequential decisions: a reduction of extensive forms to normal forms. Nonetheless, this reduction is not without its critics, both from inside and outside expected utility theory, It islay purpose in this essay to join with those critics by advocating the following thesis.

This paper (based on joint work with M.J.Schervish and J.B.Kadane) discusses some differences between the received theory of regular conditional distributions, which is the countably additive theory of conditional probability, and a rival theory of conditional probability using the theory of finitely additive probability. The focus of the paper is maximally "improper" conditional probability distributions, where the received theory requires, in effect, that P{a: P(a|a) = 0} = 1. This work builds upon the results of Blackwell and Dubins (1975).

This paper discusses some differences between the received theory of regular conditional distributions, which is the countably additive theory of conditional probability, and a rival theory of conditional probability using the theory of finitely additive probability. The focus of the paper is maximally "improper" conditional probability distributions, where the received theory requires, in effect, that P{a: P = 0} = 1. This work builds upon the results of Blackwell and Dubins.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

We consider Geanakoplos and Polemarchakis’s generalization of Aumman’s famous result on “agreeing to disagree", in the context of imprecise probability. The main purpose is to reveal a connection between the possibility of agreeing to disagree and the interesting and anomalous phenomenon known as dilation. We show that for two agents who share the same set of priors and update by conditioning on every prior, it is impossible to agree to disagree on the lower or upper probability of a hypothesis unless (...) a certain dilation occurs. With some common topological assumptions, the result entails that it is impossible to agree not to have the same set of posterior probabilities unless dilation is present. This result may be used to generate sufficient conditions for guaranteed full agreement in the generalized Aumman-setting for some important models of imprecise priors, and we illustrate the potential with an agreement result involving the density ratio classes. We also provide a formulation of our results in terms of “dilation-averse” agents who ignore information about the value of a dilating partition but otherwise update by full Bayesian conditioning. (shrink)

When real-valued utilities for outcomes are bounded, or when all variables are simple, it is consistent with expected utility to have preferences defined over probability distributions or lotteries. That is, under such circumstances two variables with a common probability distribution over outcomes – equivalent variables – occupy the same place in a preference ordering. However, if strict preference respects uniform, strict dominance in outcomes between variables, and if indifference between two variables entails indifference between their difference and the status quo, (...) then preferences over rich sets of unbounded variables, such as variables used in the St. Petersburg paradox, cannot preserve indifference between all pairs of equivalent variables. In such circumstances, preference is not a function only of probability and utility for outcomes. Then the preference ordering is not defined in terms of lotteries. (shrink)

We contrast three decision rules that extend Expected Utility to contexts where a convex set of probabilities is used to depict uncertainty: Γ-Maximin, Maximality, and E-admissibility. The rules extend Expected Utility theory as they require that an option is inadmissible if there is another that carries greater expected utility for each probability in a (closed) convex set. If the convex set is a singleton, then each rule agrees with maximizing expected utility. We show that, even when the option set is (...) convex, this pairwise comparison between acts may fail to identify those acts which are Bayes for some probability in a convex set that is not closed. This limitation affects two of the decision rules but not E-admissibility, which is not a pairwise decision rule. E-admissibility can be used to distinguish between two convex sets of probabilities that intersect all the same supporting hyperplanes. (shrink)

PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1984, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers. (1984), pp. 201-212.

Conditioning can make imprecise probabilities uniformly more imprecise. We call this effect "dilation". In a previous paper (1993), Seidenfeld and Wasserman established some basic results about dilation. In this paper we further investigate dilation on several models. In particular, we consider conditions under which dilation persists under marginalization and we quantify the degree of dilation. We also show that dilation manifests itself asymptotically in certain robust Bayesian models and we characterize the rate at which dilation occurs.

Tiebreak rules are necessary for revealing indifference in non- sequential decisions. I focus on a preference relation that satisfies Ordering and fails Independence in the following way. Lotteries a and b are indifferent but the compound lottery f, 0.5b> is strictly preferred to the compound lottery f, 0.5a>. Using tiebreak rules the following is shown here: In sequential decisions when backward induction is applied, a preference like the one just described must alter the preference relation between a and b at (...) certain choice nodes, i.e., indifference between a and b is not stable. Using this result, I answer a question posed by Rabinowicz (1997) concerning admissibility in sequential decisions when indifferent options are substituted at choice nodes. (shrink)

We study the representation of sets of desirable gambles by sets of probability mass functions. Sets of desirable gambles are a very general uncertainty model, that may be non-Archimedean, and therefore not representable by a set of probability mass functions. Recently, Cozman (2018) has shown that imposing the additional requirement of even convexity on sets of desirable gambles guarantees that they are representable by a set of probability mass functions. Already more that 20 years earlier, Seidenfeld et al. (1995) (...) gave an axiomatisation of binary preferences—on horse lotteries, rather than on gambles—that also leads to a unique representation in terms of sets of probability mass functions. To reach this goal, they use two devices, which we will call ‘SSK–Archimedeanity’ and ‘SSK–extension’. In this paper, we will make the arguments of Seidenfeld et al. (1995) explicit in the language of gambles, and show how their ideas imply even convexity and allow for conservative reasoning with evenly convex sets of desirable gambles, by deriving an equivalence between the SSK–Archimedean natural extension, the SSK–extension, and the evenly convex natural extension. (shrink)

In the longstanding foundational debate whether to require that probability is countably additive, in addition to being finitely additive, those who resist the added condition raise two concerns that we take up in this paper. (1) _Existence_: Settings where no countably additive probability exists though finitely additive probabilities do. (2) _Complete Additivity_: Where reasons for countable additivity don’t stop there. Those reasons entail complete additivity—the (measurable) union of probability 0 sets has probability 0, regardless the cardinality of that union. Then (...) probability distributions are discrete, not continuous. We use Easwaran’s (Easwaran, Thought 2:53–61, 2013) advocacy of the _Comparative_ principle to illustrate these two concerns. Easwaran supports countable additivity, both for numerical probabilities and for finer, qualitative probabilities, by defending a condition he calls the _Comparative_ principle [ \({\mathcal{C}}\) ]. For numerical probabilities, principle \({\mathcal{C}}\) contrasts pairs, P 1 and P 2, defined over a common partition \(\prod\) = {a _i_ : _i_ ∈ I} of measurable events. \({\mathcal{C}}\) requires that no P 1 may be pointwise dominated, i.e., no (finitely additive) probability P 2 exists such that for each _i_ ∈ I, P 2 (a _i_ ) > P 1 (a _i_ ). By design, the cardinality of \(\prod\) is not limited in \({\mathcal{C}}\), which Easwaran asserts is important when arguing that the principle does not require more, or less, than that probability is countably additive. We agree that a numerical probability P satisfies principle \({\mathcal{C}}\) in all partitions just in case P is countably additive. However, we show that for numerical probabilities, by considering the size of the algebra of events to which probability is applied, principle \({\mathcal{C}}\) is subject to each of the above concerns, (1) and (2). Also, Easwaran considers principle \({\mathcal{C}}\) with non-numerical, qualitative probabilities, where a qualitative probability may be finer than an almost agreeing numerical probability P. A qualitative probability is regular if possible events are strictly more likely than impossible events. Easwaran motivates and illustrates regular qualitative probabilities using a continuous, almost agreeing quantitative probability that is uniform on the unit interval. We make explicit the conditions for applying principle \({\mathcal{C}}\) with qualitative probabilities and show that \({\mathcal{C}}\) restricts regular qualitative probabilities to those whose almost agreeing quantitative probabilities are completely additive. For instance, Easwaran’s motivating example of a regular qualitative probability is precluded by principle \({\mathcal{C}}\). (shrink)

We report two issues concerning diverging sets of Bayesian (conditional) probabilities-divergence of "posteriors"-that can result with increasing evidence. Consider a set P of probabilities typically, but not always, based on a set of Bayesian "priors." Fix E, an event of interest, and X, a random variable to be observed. With respect to P, when the set of conditional probabilities for E, given X, strictly contains the set of unconditional probabilities for E, for each possible outcome X = x, call this (...) phenomenon dilation of the set of probabilities (Seidenfeld and Wasserman 1993). Thus, dilation contrasts with the asymptotic merging of posterior probabilities reported by Savage (1954) and by Blackwell and Dubins (1962). (1) In a wide variety of models for Robust Bayesian inference the extent to which X dilates E is related to a model specific index of how far key elements of P are from a distribution that makes X and E independent. (2) At a fixed confidence level, (1-α), Classical interval estimates A n for, e.g., a Normal mean θ have length O(n -1/2 ) (for sample size n). Of course, the confidence level correctly reports the (prior) probability that θ ∈ A n ,P(A n )=1-α , independent of the prior for θ . However, as shown by Pericchi and Walley (1991), if an ε -contamination class is used for the prior on the parameter θ , there is asymptotic (posterior) dilation for the A n , given the data. If, however, the intervals A ′ n are chosen with length $O(\sqrt{\log (\text{n})/\text{n})}$ , then there is no asymptotic dilation. We discuss the asymptotic rates of dilation for ClassClassical and Bayesian interval estimates and relate these to Bayesian hypothesis testing. (shrink)

Teddy Seidenfeld – CMU An old, wise, and widely held attitude in Statistics is that modest intervention in the design of an experiment followed by simple statistical analysis may yield much more of value than using very sophisticated statistical analysis on a poorly designed existing data set.

On pp. 55–58 of Philosophical Problems of Statistical Inference, I argue that in light of unsatisfactory after-trial properties of “best” Neyman-Pearson confidence intervals, we can strengthen a traditional criticism of the orthodox N-P theory. The criticism is that, once particular data become available, we see that the pre-trial concern for tests of maximum power may then misrepresent the conclusion of such a test. Specifically, I offer a statistical example where there exists a Uniformly Most Powerful test, a test of highest (...) N-P credentials, which generates a system of “best” confidence intervals with exact confidence coefficients. But the [CIλ] intervals have the unsatisfactory feature that, for a recognizable set of outcomes, the interval estimates cover all parameter values consistent with the data, at strictly less than 100% confidence. (shrink)

In 1936 R.A.Fisher asked the pointed question, "Has Mendel's Work Been Rediscovered?" The query was intended to open for discussion whether someone altered the data in Gregor Mendel's classic 1866 research report on the garden pea, "Experiments in Plant-Hybridization." Fisher concluded, reluctantly, that the statistical counts in Mendel's paper were doctored in order to create a better intuitive fit between Mendelian expected values and observed frequencies. That verdict remains the received view among statisticians, so I believe. Fisher's analysis is a (...) tour de force of so-called "Goodness of Fit" statistical tests using c2 to calculate significance levels, i.e., P-values. In this presentation I attempt a defense of Mendel's report, based on several themes. (1) Mendel's experiments include some important sequential design features that Fisher ignores. (2) Fisher uses particular statistical techniques of Meta-analysis for pooling outcomes from different experiments. These methods are subject to critical debate. and (3) I speculate on a small modification to Mendelian theory that offers some relief from Fisher's harsh conclusion that Mendel's data are too good to be true. (shrink)

Pi(AS) = Pi(A)Pi(S) for i = 1, 2. But the Linear Pool created a group opinion P3 with positive dependence. P3(A|S) > P3(A).

Part 1 Background on de Finetti’s twin criteria of coherence: Coherence1: 2-sided previsions free from dominance through a Book. Coherence2: Forecasts free from dominance under Brier (squared error) score. Part 2 IP theory based on a scoring rule.

This paper offers a comparison between two decision rules for use when uncertainty is depicted by a non-trivial, convex2 set of probability functions Γ. This setting for uncertainty is different from the canonical Bayesian decision theory of expected utility, which uses a singleton set, just one probability function to represent a decision maker’s uncertainty. Justifications for using a non-trivial set of probabilities to depict uncertainty date back at least a half century (Good, 1952) and a foreshadowing of that idea can (...) be found even in Keynes’ (1921), where he allows that not all hypotheses may be comparable by qualitative probability – in accord with, e.g., the situation where the respective intervals of probabilities for two events merely overlap with no further (joint) constraints, so that neither of the two events is more, or less, or equally probable compared with the other. (shrink)

This paper examines definitions of independence for events and variables in the context of full conditional measures; that is, when conditional probability is a primitive notion and conditioning is allowed on null events. Several independence concepts are evaluated with respect to graphoid properties; we show that properties of weak union, contraction and intersection may fail when null events are present. We propose a concept of “full” independence, characterize the form of a full conditional measure under full independence, and suggest how (...) to build a theory of Bayesian networks that accommodates null events. (shrink)

Consider two SEU Bayesian decision makers, Dick and Jane, who wish to form a cooperative partnership that will make decisions, constrained by the following two principles governing coherence and compromise.

We extend a result of Dubins [3] from bounded to unbounded random variables. Dubins [3] showed that a finitely additive expectation over the collection of bounded random variables can be written as an integral of conditional expectations (disintegrability) if and only if the marginal expectation is always within the smallest closed interval containing the conditional expectations (conglomerability). We give a sufficient condition to extend this result to the collection Z of all random variables that have finite expected value and whose (...) conditional expectations are finite and have finite expected value. The sufficient condition also allows the result to extend some, but not all, subcollections of Z. We give an example where the equivalence of disintegrability and conglomerability fails for a subcollection of Z that still contains all bounded random variables. (shrink)

PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1978, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers. (1978), pp. 478-489.

In his recent monograph [7], Professor Shafer has offered us an alternative to Bayesian inference with his novel theory of belief functions and, in his current paper [8], has characterized his position by pointing to two basic differences it shares with Bayesianism. First, belief functions are non-additive so that the degree of belief assigned to the disjunction ‘A1 or A2’ may be larger than the sum of the degrees of belief assigned to the separate disjuncts. Second, the theory of belief (...) functions has its own rule for determining the commitments to changes in degrees of belief when evidence is compounded. So, instead of the Bayesian postulate of conditionalization, that is, in place of using Bayes’ theorem to identify the commitments to changes in probability when evidence accumulates, the theory advocated by Professor Shafer relies on a proposal he traces to A.P.Dempster, which he calls Dempster’s rule for combination of belief functions. (shrink)

= { 1, …, n} is a finite partition of the sure event: a set of states. Consider two acts A1, A2 defined by the their outcomes relative to.

DeFinetti took the concept of random variables as gambles very seriously, and used the concept to motivate the familiar concepts of probability and expectation. For each gamble X, he assumed that “You” would assign a value P (X), called the prevision of X so that you would be willing to accept the gamble β[X − P (X)] as fair for all positive and negative values β. The only constraint that deFinetti envisioned for you and your previsions is that you insisted (...) that there be no positive amount that you had to lose for sure. For example, you would not be allowed to call a gamble fair if its supremum were negative. On the other hand, the criterion is weak enough to allow you call a gamble fair if its supremum is 0, even if all of its possible values are negative. (shrink)