informs ® doi 10.1287/mnsc.1050.0379

This paper surveys methods for representing and reasoning with imperfect information. It opens with an attempt to classify the different types of imperfection that may pervade data, and a discussion of the sources of such imperfections. The classification is then used as a framework for considering work that explicitly concerns the representation of imperfect information, and related work on how imperfect information may be used as a basis for reasoning. The work that is surveyed is drawn from both the field of databases and the field of artificial intelligence. Both of these areas have long been concerned with the problems caused by imperfect information, and this paper stresses the relationships between the approaches developed in each.

: We introduce a new probabilistic approach to dealing with uncertainty, based on the observation that probability theory does not require that every event be assigned a probability. For a nonmeasurable event (one to which we do not assign a probability), we can talk about only the inner measure and outer measure of the event. In addition to removing the requirement that every event be assigned a probability, our approach circumvents other criticisms of probability-based approaches to uncertainty. For example, the measure of belief in an event turns out to be represented by an interval (defined by the inner and outer measure), rather than by a single number. Further, this approach allows us to assign a belief (inner measure) to an event E without committing to a belief about its negation :E (since the inner measure of an event plus the inner measure of its negation is not necessarily one). Interestingly enough, inner measures induced by probability measures turn out to correspond in a ...

Currently, there is renewed interest in the problem, raised by Shafer in 1985, of updating probabilities when observations are incomplete (or set-valued). This is a fundamental problem in general, and of particular interest for Bayesian networks. Recently, Gr unwald and Halpern have shown that commonly used updating strategies fail in this case, except under very special assumptions. In this paper we propose a new method for updating probabilities with incomplete observations. Our approach is deliberately conservative: we make no assumptions about the so-called incompleteness mechanism that associates complete with incomplete observations. We model our ignorance about this mechanism by a vacuous lower prevision, a tool from the theory of imprecise probabilities, and we use only coherence arguments to turn prior into posterior (updated) probabilities. In general, this new approach to updating produces lower and upper posterior probabilities and previsions (expectations), as well as partially determinate decisions. This is a logical consequence of the existing ignorance about the incompleteness mechanism. As an example, we use the new updating method to properly address the apparent paradox in the `Monty Hall' puzzle. More importantly, we apply it to the problem of classification of new evidence in probabilistic expert systems, where it leads to a new, so-called conservative updating rule.

A new concept of mutually expected rationality in noncooperative games is proposed: joint coherence. This is an extension of the “no arbitrage opportunities” axiom that underlies subjective probability theory and a variety of economic models. It sheds light on the controversy over the strategies that can reasonably be recommended to or expected to arise among Bayesian rational players. Joint coherence is shown to support Aumann’s position in favor of objective correlated equilibrium, although the common prior assumption is weakened and viewed as a theorem rather than an axiom. An elementary proof of the existence of correlated equilibria is given, and relationships with other solution concepts (Nash equilibrium, independent and correlated rationalizability) are also discussed.

A quantified model to represent uncertainty is incomplete if its use in a decision environment is not explained. When belief functions were first introduced to represent quantified uncertainty, no associated decision model was proposed. Since then, it became clear that the belief functions meaning is multiple. The models based on belief functions could be understood as an upper and lower probabilities model, as the hint model, as the transferable belief model and as a probability model extended to modal propositions. These models are mathematically identical at the static level, their behaviors diverge at their dynamic level (under conditioning and/or revision). For decision making, some authors defend that decisions must be based on expected utilities, in which case a probability function must be determined. When uncertainty is represented by belief functions, the choice of the appropriate probability function must be explained and justified. This probability function doe...

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

0 =h 0 in the diagram. The sawtooth line reflects the fact that even when the principle of indifference can be applied, there may be arguments whose strength can be bounded no more precisely than by an adjacent pair of indifference arguments. Note that a=h in the diagram is bounded numerically only by 0.0 and the strength of a 00 =h 00 . Keynes' ideas were taken up by B. O. Koopman [14, 15, 16], who provided an axiomatization for Keynes' probability values. The axioms are qualitative, and reflect what Keynes said about probability judgment. (It should be remembered that for Keynes probability judgment was intended to be objective in the sense that logic is objective. Although different people may accept different premises, whether or not a conclusion follows logically from a given set of premises is objective. Though Ramsey [26] attacked this aspect of Keynes' theory, it can be argued

This paper is concerned with establishing broadly-based system-theoretic foundations and practical techniques for the problem of system identification that are rigorous, intuitively clear and conceptually powerful. A general formulation is first given in which two order relations are postulated on a class of models: a constant one of complexity; and a variable one of approximation induced by an observed behaviour. An admissible model is such that any less complex model is a worse approximation. The general problem of identification is that of finding the admissible subspace of models induced by a given behaviour. It is proved under very general assumptions that, if deterministic models are required then nearly all behaviours require models of nearly maximum complexity. A general theory of approximation between models and behaviour is then developed based on subjective probability concepts and semantic information theory The role of structural constraints such as causality, locality, finite memory, etc., are then discussed as rules of the game. These concepts and results are applied to the specific problem or stochastic automaton, or grammar, inference. Computational results are given to demonstrate that the theory is complete and fully operational. Finally the formulation of identification proposed in this paper is analysed in terms of Klir’s epistemological hierarchy and both are discussed in terms of the rich philosophical literature on the acquisition of knowledge. 1

Abstract not found