arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv周末暂无论文更新,休息一下吧,周末愉快~~
arXiv 0906.4332cs.AI
收藏

更新概率集

Updating Sets of Probabilities

NEC Research Institute(NEC研究院);Cornell University(康奈尔大学)

Adam J. Grove, Joseph Y. Halpern

摘要:

有几个众所周知的理由,条件作为适当的方法来更新一个单一的概率测量,给定的观察。然而,有一个重要的机构的工作主张套概率措施,而不是单一的措施,作为一个更现实的模型的不确定性。在这种情况下,条件化仍然有意义-我们可以简单地单独条件化集合中的每个度量,然后组合结果-而且,事实上,它似乎是文献中首选的更新程序。但是,在这个更丰富的环境中,条件作用的合理性如何呢?在这里,我们表明,通过考虑一个公理帐户的条件所给予的范Fraassen,单措施和措施集的情况下是非常不同的。我们表明,范Fraassen的公理化的前一种情况下是远远不够的措施更新集。我们给出了一个相当长(并且不那么引人注目)的公理列表,这些公理共同强制在此设置中进行调节,并描述了一旦放弃这些公理中的任何一个就允许的其他更新方法。

英文摘要:

There are several well-known justifications for conditioning as the appropriate method for updating a single probability measure, given an observation. However, there is a significant body of work arguing for sets of probability measures, rather than single measures, as a more realistic model of uncertainty. Conditioning still makes sense in this context--we can simply condition each measure in the set individually, then combine the results--and, indeed, it seems to be the preferred updating procedure in the literature. But how justified is conditioning in this richer setting? Here we show, by considering an axiomatic account of conditioning given by van Fraassen, that the single-measure and sets-of-measures cases are very different. We show that van Fraassen's axiomatization for the former case is nowhere near sufficient for updating sets of measures. We give a considerably longer (and not as compelling) list of axioms that together force conditioning in this setting, and describe other update methods that are allowed once any of these axioms is dropped.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑