According to the weak likelihood principle, hypotheses that are uniformly better predictors of the data are better supported by the data. For example, the fact that little Johnny is a Christian is better evidence for thinking that his parents are Christian than for thinking that they are Hindu because a a far higher proportion of Christian parents than Hindu have Christian children, and b a far higher proportion of non-Christian parents than non-Hindu parents have non-Christian children.
Bayes' Theorem can also be used as the basis for developing and evaluating quantitative measures of evidential support. Thus, all four measures agree with the comparative account of incremental evidence given in 2.
Some authors maintain that one or another of these functions is the unique correct measure of incremental evidence; others think it best to use a variety of measures that capture different evidential relationships. While this is not the place to adjudicate these issues, we can look to Bayes' Theorem for help in understanding what the various functions measure and in characterizing the formal relationships among them.
All four measures agree in their conclusions about the comparative amount of incremental evidence that different items of data provide for a fixed hypothesis. In particular, they agree ordinally about the following concepts derived from incremental evidence:. Effective evidence is a matter of the degree to which a person's total evidence for H depends on her opinion about E.
Readers may consult Table 4 in the supplement for quantitative measures of effective and differential evidence. The second clause of 2. It is then a simple step to show that all four measures of incremental support agree ordinally on questions of effective evidence and of differentials in incremental evidence. The four measures of incremental support can disagree over the comparative degree to which a single item of data incrementally confirms two distinct hypotheses.
Example 3 , Example 4 , and Example 5 in the supplement show the various ways in which this can happen. All the differences between the measures have ultimately to do with a whether the total evidence in favor of a hypothesis should be measured in terms of probabilities or in terms of odds, and b whether disparities in total evidence are best captured as ratios or as differences.
Rows in the following table correspond to different measures of total evidence. Columns correspond to different ways of treating disparities. Similar tables can be constructed for measures of net evidence and measures of balances in total evidence. See Table 5A in the supplement.
We can use the various forms of Bayes' Theorem to clarify the similarities and differences among these measures by rewriting each of them in terms of likelihood ratios. This table shows that there are two differences between each multiplicative measure and its additive counterpart.
First, the likelihood term that appears in a given multiplicative measure is diminished by 1 in its associated additive measure. Second, in each additive measure the diminished likelihood term is multiplied by an expression for H 's probability: P H or O H , as the case may be.
The first difference marks no distinction; it is due solely to the fact that the multiplicative and additive measures employ a different zero point from which to measure evidence. The real difference between the measures in a given row concerns the effect of unconditional probabilities on relations of incremental confirmation.
Bayes' Theorem can also help us understand the difference between rows. The measures within a given row agree about the role of predictability in incremental confirmation. The central issue here concerns the status of the likelihood ratio. While everyone agrees that it should play a leading role in any quantitative theory of evidence, there are conflicting views about precisely what evidential relationship it captures.
There are three possible interpretations. On the first reading there is no conflict whatsoever between using probability ratios and using likelihood ratios to measure evidence. Thus, while each of the two functions can figure as one component in a meaningful measure of confirmation, neither tells us anything about incremental evidence when taken by itself. The third view, "likelihoodism," is popular among non-Bayesian statisticians. Its proponents deny evidence proportionism.
They maintain that a person's subjective probability for a hypothesis merely reflects her degree of uncertainty about its truth; it need not be tied in any way to the amount of evidence she has in its favor.
Here are two classic statements of the position. Brinbaum , On this view, everything that can be said about the evidential import of E for H is embodied in the following generalization of the weak likelihood principle:.
The biostatistician Richard Royall is a particularly lucid defender of likelihoodism Royall He maintains that any scientifically respectable concept of evidence must analyze the evidential impact of E on H solely in terms of likelihoods; it should not advert to anyone's unconditional probabilities for E or H.
This is supposed to be because likelihoods are both better known and more objective than unconditional probabilities. Royall argues strenuously against the idea that incremental evidence can be measured in terms of the disparity between unconditional and conditional probabilities. Here is the gist of his complaint:. Whether one agrees with this assessment will be a matter of philosophical temperament, in particular of one's willingness to tolerate subjective probabilities in one's account of evidential relations.
It will also depend crucially on the extent to which one is convinced that likelihoods are better known and more objective than ordinary subjective probabilities. Cases like the one envisioned in the law of likelihood, where hypotheses deductively entails a definite probability for the data, are relatively rare. So, unless one is willing to adopt a theory of evidence with a very restricted range of application, a great deal will turn on how easy it is to determine objective likelihoods in situations where the predictive connection from hypothesis to data is itself the result of inductive inferences.
However one comes down on these issues, though, there is no denying that likelihood ratios will play a central role in any probabilistic account of evidence. In fact, the weak likelihood principle 2. This is clearest when it is restated in terms of likelihoods. Likelihoodists will endorse 2. Proponents of both the "probability" and "odds" interpretations of total evidence will accept 2. Indeed, the weak likelihood principle must be an integral part of any account of evidential relevance that deserves the title "Bayesian".
To deny it is to misunderstand the central message of Bayes' Theorem for questions of evidence: namely, that hypotheses are confirmed by data they predict. As we shall see in the next section, this "minimal" form of Bayesianism figures importantly into subjectivist models of learning from experience.
Subjectivists think of learning as a process of belief revision in which a "prior" subjective probability P is replaced by a "posterior" probability Q that incorporates newly acquired information. This process proceeds in two stages. First, some of the subject's probabilities are directly altered by experience, intuition, memory, or some other non-inferential learning process. Second, the subject "updates" the rest of her opinions to bring them into line with her newly acquired knowledge.
Many subjectivists are content to regard the initial belief changes as sui generis and independent of the believer's prior state of opinion. However, as long as the first phase of the learning process is understood to be non-inferential, subjectivism can be made compatible with an "externalist" epistemology that allows for criticism of belief changes in terms the reliability of the causal processes that generate them. It can even accommodate the thought that the direct effect of experience might depend causally on the believer's prior probability.
Subjectivists have studied the second, inferential phase of the learning process in great detail. Here immediate belief changes are seen as imposing constraints of the form "the posterior probability Q has such-and-such properties. Subjectivists approach the latter problem by assuming that the agent is justified in adopting whatever eligible posterior departs minimally from her prior opinions. This is a kind of "no jumping to conclusions" requirement. We explain it here as a natural result of the idea that rational learners should proportion their beliefs to the strength of the evidence they acquire.
The simplest learning experiences are those in which the learner becomes certain of the truth of some proposition E about which she was previously uncertain.
Here the constraint is that all hypotheses inconsistent with E must be assigned probability zero. Subjectivists model this sort of learning as simple conditioning , the process in which the prior probability of each proposition H is replaced by a posterior that coincides with the prior probability of H conditional on E.
In short, a rational believer who learns for certain that E is true should factor this information into her doxastic system by conditioning on it. Though useful as an ideal, simple conditioning is not widely applicable because it requires the learner to become absolutely certain of E 's truth.
As Richard Jeffrey has argued Jeffrey , the evidence we receive is often too vague or ambiguous to justify such "dogmatism. Experiences of this sort are appropriately modeled by what has come to be called Jeffrey conditioning though Jeffrey's preferred term is "probability kinematics". A variety of arguments for conditioning simple or Jeffrey-style can be found in the literature, but we cannot consider them here.
It exploits connections between belief revision and the notion of incremental evidence to show that conditioning is the only belief revision rule that allows learners to correctly proportion their posterior beliefs to the new evidence they receive. The key to the argument lies in marrying the "minimal" version of Bayesian expressed in the 2. This requires an agent to retain his views about the relative probability of two hypotheses when he acquires evidence that supports the more probable hypothesis more strongly.
It rules out obviously irrational belief revisions such as this: George is more confident that the New York Yankees will win the American League Pennant than he is that the Boston Rex Sox will win it, but he reverses himself when he learns only that the Yankees beat the Red Sox in last night's game. On the reasonable assumption that Q is defined on the same set of propositions over which P is defined, this condition suffices to pick out simple conditioning as the unique correct method of belief revision for learning experiences that make E certain.
It picks out Jeffrey conditioning as the unique correct method when learning merely alters one's subjective probability for E. The argument for these conclusions makes use of the following two facts about probabilities. From here the argument for simple conditioning is a matter of using 3. It follows from 3. Thus, Q and P are ordinally similar with respect to hypotheses that entail H.
If we go on to suppose that the learning experience raises E 's probability to 1, then 3. The case for Jeffrey conditioning is similarly direct. It is easy to show that 3. While much more can be said about simple conditioning, Jeffrey conditioning and other forms of belief revision, these remarks should give the reader a sense of the importance of Bayes' Theorem in subjectivist accounts of learning and evidential support. Though a mathematical triviality, the Theorem's central insight — that a hypothesis is supported by any body of data it renders probable — lies at the heart of all subjectivist approaches to epistemology, statistics, and inductive logic.
Conditional Probabilities and Bayes' Theorem 2. Special Forms of Bayes' Theorem 3. Conditional Probabilities and Bayes' Theorem The probability of a hypothesis H conditional on a given body of data E is the ratio of the unconditional probability of the conjunction of the hypothesis with the data to the unconditional probability of the data alone. Here are some straightforward consequences of 1. P E is a probability function. Preservation of Certainties. Special Forms of Bayes' Theorem Bayes' Theorem can be expressed in a variety of forms that are useful for different purposes.
Bayes' Theorem is equivalent to the following fact about odds ratios: 1. The odds of a hypothesis conditional on a body of data is equal to the unconditional odds of the hypothesis multiplied by the degree to which it surpasses its negation as a predictor of the data.
The Role of Bayes' Theorem in Subjectivist Accounts of Evidence Subjectivists maintain that beliefs come in varying gradations of strength, and that an ideally rational person's graded beliefs can be represented by a subjective probability function P.
The guiding ideas of this Bayesian confirmation theory are these: Confirmational Relativity. Evidential relationships must be relativized to individuals and their degrees of belief. Evidence Proportionism. Incremental Confirmation. It will be useful to distinguish two subsidiary concepts related to total evidence. Relative to a subjective probability function P , E incrementally confirms disconfirms, is irrelevant to H if and only if P E H is greater than less than, equal to P H.
The difference measures answer yes, the ratio measures answer no. Table 7 : Three interpretations of the likelihood ratio Probability as total evidence reading PR H , E measures incremental change in total evidence. LR H , E measures incremental change in net evidence.
LR H , E 2 measures incremental change in net evidence. All the information which the data provide concerning the relative merits of two hypotheses is contained in the likelihood ratio of the hypotheses on the data.
Brinbaum , On this view, everything that can be said about the evidential import of E for H is embodied in the following generalization of the weak likelihood principle: The " Law of Likelihood ". Hacking , , Royall , 3 The biostatistician Richard Royall is a particularly lucid defender of likelihoodism Royall The Role of Bayes' Theorem in Subjectivist Models of Learning Subjectivists think of learning as a process of belief revision in which a "prior" subjective probability P is replaced by a "posterior" probability Q that incorporates newly acquired information.
Combining 3. Proof Sketch 3. Ordinal Similarity. Proof Sketch From here the argument for simple conditioning is a matter of using 3. The general moral is clear. The basic Bayesian insight embodied in the weak likelihood principle 2.
Bibliography Armendt, B. Bayes, T. Carnap, R. Logical Foundations of Probability , 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chihara, C. Christensen, D. Dale, A. A History of Inverse Probability , 2nd edition. New York: Springer-Verlag. Earman, J. Bayes or Bust? Edwards, A. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Glymour, Clark. Theory and Evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Hacking, Ian.
Logic of Statistical Inference. Zalta ed. Humphreys, ed. Harper, W. Harper and C. Hooker, eds. Dordrecht: Reidel, Hartigan, J. Handbook of Function and Generalized Function Transformations. Ahmed I.
Function transformations, which include linear integral transformations, are some of the most important mathematical tools for solving problems in all areas of engineering and the physical sciences.
They allow one to quickly solve a problem by breaking it down into a series of smaller, more manageable problems. The author has compiled the most important and widely used of these function transforms in applied mathematics and electrical engineering.
In addition to classical transforms, newer transforms such as wavelets, Zak, and Radon are included. The book is neither a table of transforms nor a textbook, but it is a source book that provides quick and easy access to the most important properties and formulas of function and generalized function transformations.
It is organized for convenient reference, with chapters broken down into the following sections:. Preview this book ». What people are saying - Write a review. Selected pages Title Page. Table of Contents. Contents Preliminaries. Special Functions. Generalized Functions. Function Transformations. The Laplace Transform.
The Borel Transform. The Stieltjes Transform. The Hankel and HankelType Transforms. The Hardy Transform. The K Meijer Transform. The KontorovichLebedev Transform. The MehlerFock Transform.
The SturmLiouvilleType Transforms. Miscellaneous Transforms. The Lambert Transform.
0コメント