As examples such as the Monty Hall puzzle show, applying conditioning to update a probability distribution on a "naive space", which does not take into account the protocol used, can often lead to counterintuitive results. Here we examine why. A criterion known as CAR ("coarsening at random") in the statistical literature characterizes when "naive" conditioning in a naive space works. We show that the CAR condition holds rather infrequently, and we provide a procedural characterization of it, by giving a randomized algorithm that generates all and only distributions for which CAR holds. This substantially extends previous characterizations of CAR. We also consider more generalized notions of update such as Jeffrey conditioning and minimizing relative entropy (MRE). We give a generalization of the CAR condition that characterizes when Jeffrey conditioning leads to appropriate answers, and show that there exist some very simple settings in which MRE essentially never gives the right results. This generalizes and interconnects previous results obtained in the literature on CAR and MRE.

Conditioning is the generally agreed-upon method for updating probability distributions when one learns that an event is certainly true. But it has been argued that we need other rules, in particular the rule of cross-entropy minimization, to handle updates that involve uncertain information. In this paper we re-examine such a case: van Fraassen's Judy Benjamin problem [1987], which in essence asks how one might update given the value of a conditional probability. We argue that---contrary to the suggestions in the literature---it is possible to use simple conditionalization in this case, and thereby obtain answers that agree fully with intuition. This contrasts with proposals such as cross-entropy, which are easier to apply but can give unsatisfactory answers. Based on the lessons from this example, we speculate on some general philosophical issues concerning probability update. 1 INTRODUCTION How should one update one's beliefs, represented as a probability distribution Pr over some ...

The principle of maximumentropy is a general method to assign values to probability distributions on the basis of partial information. This principle, introduced by Jaynes in 1957, forms an extension of the classical principle of insufficient reason. It has been further generalized, both in mathematical formulation and in intended scope, into the principle of maximum relative entropy or of minimum information. It has been claimed that these principles are singled out as unique methods of statistical inference that agree with certain compelling consistency requirements. This paper reviews these consistency arguments and the surrounding controversy. It is shown that the uniqueness proofs are flawed, or rest on unreasonably strong assumptions. A more general class of 1 inference rules, maximizing the so-called R'enyi entropies, is exhibited which also fulfill the reasonable part of the consistency assumptions. 1 Introduction In any application of probability theory to the pro...

The principle of maximum entropy is a method for assigning values to probability distributions on the basis of partial information. In usual formulations of this and related methods of inference one assumes that this partial information takes the form of a constraint on allowed probability distributions. In practical applications, however, the information consists of empirical data. A constraint rule is then employed to construct constraints on probability distributions out of these data. Usually one adopts the rule to equate the expectation values of certain functions with their empirical averages. There are, however, various other ways in which one can construct constraints from empirical data, which makes the maximum entropy principle lead to very different probability assignments. This paper shows that an argument by Jaynes to justify the usual constraint rule is unsatisfactory and investigates several alternative choices. The choice of a constraint rule is also show...