Advertisement

How to Predict Consistently?

  • Evgeni Vityaev
  • Sergei Odintsov
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 796)

Abstract

One of reasons for arising the statistical ambiguity is using in the course of reasoning laws which have probabilistic, but not logical justification. Carl Hempel supposed that one can avoid the statistical ambiguity if we will use in the probabilistic reasoning maximal specific probabilistic laws. In the present work we deal with laws of the form \(\varphi \Rightarrow \psi \), where \(\varphi \) and \(\psi \) are arbitrary propositional formulas. Given a probability on the set of formulas we define the notion of a maximal specific probabilistic law. Further, we define a prediction operator as an inference with the help of maximal specific laws and prove that applying the prediction operator to some consistent set of formulas we obtain a consistent set of consequences.

Keywords

Probabilistic inference Maximal specificity Prediction Consistency 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The first of the authors (Sects. 1 and 2, also a coauthor of Theorem 1) was supported by the Russian Science Foundation (project # 17-11-01176). Both authors are grateful to the anonymous referees for their helpful reports and to participants of ESCIM’17 for the interesting discussion.

References

  1. 1.
    Fagin, R., Halpern, J.Y., Megiddo, N.: A logic for reasoning about probabilities. Inform. Comput. 80, 78–128 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fetzer, J.H.: Scientific Explanation. D. Reidel, Dordrecht (1981)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fetzer, J.: Carl Hempel. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) Stanford Enciclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University (2014). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hempel
  4. 4.
    Hempel, C.G.: Aspects of scientific explanation. In: Hempel, C.G. (ed.) Aspects of Scientific Explanation and other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. The Free Press, New York (1965)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kovalerchuk, B., Vityaev, E.: Data Mining in Finance: Advances in Relational and Hybrid methods, 308 pp. Kluwer Academic Publishers (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kovalerchuk, B., Vityaev, E., Ruiz, J.F.: Consistent and complete data and “expert” mining in medicine. In: Medical Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, pp. 238–280. Springer (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Salmon, W.C.: Four Decades of Scientific Explanation. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis (1990)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Scott, D., Krauss P.: Assigning probabilities to logical formulas. In: Hintikka, J., Suppes, P. (eds.) Aspects of Inductive Logic, pp. 219–264. North-Holland (1966)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vityaev, E.E.: The logic of prediction. In: Proceedings of the 9th Asian Logic Conference, Novosibirsk, Russia, 16–19 August 2006, pp. 263–276. World Scientific (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vityaev, E.E., Martynovich, V.V.: Probabilistic formal concepts with negation. In: Voronkov, A., Virbitskaite, I. (eds.) PSI 2014. LNCS, vol. 8974, pp. 1–15. Springer (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sobolev Institute of MathematicsNovosibirskRussian Federation

Personalised recommendations