-
A behavioral interpretation of belief functions
Authors:
Timber Kerkvliet,
Ronald Meester
Abstract:
Shafer's belief functions were introduced in the seventies of the previous century as a mathematical tool in order to model epistemic probability. One of the reasons that they were not picked up by mainstream probability was the lack of a behavioral interpretation. In this paper we provide such a behavioral interpretation, and re-derive Shafer's belief functions via a betting interpretation remini…
▽ More
Shafer's belief functions were introduced in the seventies of the previous century as a mathematical tool in order to model epistemic probability. One of the reasons that they were not picked up by mainstream probability was the lack of a behavioral interpretation. In this paper we provide such a behavioral interpretation, and re-derive Shafer's belief functions via a betting interpretation reminiscent of the classical Dutch Book Theorem for probability distributions. We relate our betting interpretation of belief functions to the existing literature.
△ Less
Submitted 24 March, 2017; v1 submitted 30 January, 2017;
originally announced January 2017.
-
Assessing forensic evidence by computing belief functions
Authors:
Timber Kerkvliet,
Ronald Meester
Abstract:
We first discuss certain problems with the classical probabilistic approach for assessing forensic evidence, in particular its inability to distinguish between lack of belief and disbelief, and its inability to model complete ignorance within a given population. We then discuss Shafer belief functions, a generalization of probability distributions, which can deal with both these objections. We use…
▽ More
We first discuss certain problems with the classical probabilistic approach for assessing forensic evidence, in particular its inability to distinguish between lack of belief and disbelief, and its inability to model complete ignorance within a given population. We then discuss Shafer belief functions, a generalization of probability distributions, which can deal with both these objections. We use a calculus of belief functions which does not use the much criticized Dempster rule of combination, but only the very natural Dempster-Shafer conditioning. We then apply this calculus to some classical forensic problems like the various island problems and the problem of parental identification. If we impose no prior knowledge apart from assuming that the culprit or parent belongs to a given population (something which is possible in our setting), then our answers differ from the classical ones when uniform or other priors are imposed. We can actually retrieve the classical answers by imposing the relevant priors, so our setup can and should be interpreted as a generalization of the classical methodology, allowing more flexibility. We show how our calculus can be used to develop an analogue of Bayes' rule, with belief functions instead of classical probabilities. We also discuss consequences of our theory for legal practice.
△ Less
Submitted 12 April, 2016; v1 submitted 2 December, 2015;
originally announced December 2015.
-
Quantifying knowledge with a new calculus for belief functions - a generalization of probability theory
Authors:
Timber Kerkvliet,
Ronald Meester
Abstract:
We first show that there are practical situations in for instance forensic and gambling settings, in which applying classical probability theory, that is, based on the axioms of Kolmogorov, is problematic. We then introduce and discuss Shafer belief functions. Technically, Shafer belief functions generalize probability distributions. Philosophically, they pertain to individual or shared knowledge…
▽ More
We first show that there are practical situations in for instance forensic and gambling settings, in which applying classical probability theory, that is, based on the axioms of Kolmogorov, is problematic. We then introduce and discuss Shafer belief functions. Technically, Shafer belief functions generalize probability distributions. Philosophically, they pertain to individual or shared knowledge of facts, rather than to facts themselves, and therefore can be interpreted as generalizing epistemic probability, that is, probability theory interpreted epistemologically. Belief functions are more flexible and better suited to deal with certain types of uncertainty than classical probability distributions. We develop a new calculus for belief functions which does not use the much criticized Dempster's rule of combination, by generalizing the classical notions of conditioning and independence in a natural and uncontroversial way. Using this calculus, we explain our rejection of Dempster's rule in detail. We apply the new theory to a number of examples, including a gambling example and an example in a forensic setting. We prove a law of large numbers for belief functions and offer a betting interpretation similar to the Dutch Book Theorem for probability distributions.
△ Less
Submitted 2 December, 2015;
originally announced December 2015.
-
The supertask of an infinite lottery
Authors:
Timber Kerkvliet
Abstract:
We mathematically model the supertask, introduced by Hansen, in which an infinity of gods together select a random natural number by each randomly removing a finite number of balls from an urn, leaving one final ball. We show that this supertask is highly underdetermined, i.e. there are many scenarios consistent with the supertask. In particular we show that the notion of uniformity for finitely a…
▽ More
We mathematically model the supertask, introduced by Hansen, in which an infinity of gods together select a random natural number by each randomly removing a finite number of balls from an urn, leaving one final ball. We show that this supertask is highly underdetermined, i.e. there are many scenarios consistent with the supertask. In particular we show that the notion of uniformity for finitely additive probability measures on the natural numbers emerging from this supertask is unreasonably weak.
△ Less
Submitted 24 November, 2015;
originally announced November 2015.
-
Uniquely determined uniform probability on the natural numbers
Authors:
Timber Kerkvliet,
Ronald Meester
Abstract:
In this paper, we address the problem of constructing a uniform probability measure on $\mathbb{N}$. Of course, this is not possible within the bounds of the Kolmogorov axioms and we have to violate at least one axiom. We define a probability measure as a finitely additive measure assigning probability $1$ to the whole space, on a domain which is closed under complements and finite disjoint unions…
▽ More
In this paper, we address the problem of constructing a uniform probability measure on $\mathbb{N}$. Of course, this is not possible within the bounds of the Kolmogorov axioms and we have to violate at least one axiom. We define a probability measure as a finitely additive measure assigning probability $1$ to the whole space, on a domain which is closed under complements and finite disjoint unions. We introduce and motivate a notion of uniformity which we call weak thinnability, which is strictly stronger than extension of natural density. We construct a weakly thinnable probability measure and we show that on its domain, which contains sets without natural density, probability is uniquely determined by weak thinnability. In this sense, we can assign uniform probabilities in a canonical way. We generalize this result to uniform probability measures on other metric spaces, including $\mathbb{R}^n$.
△ Less
Submitted 5 March, 2015; v1 submitted 17 February, 2014;
originally announced February 2014.
