BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Glenn Shafer

Glenn Shafer contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Artificial Intelligencemath.STStatistics Theorymath.PRmath.HOMethodologyq-fin.PRq-fin.TR

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
10works
0followers
8topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

10 published item(s)

preprint2013arXiv

An Axiomatic Framework for Bayesian and Belief-function Propagation

In this paper, we describe an abstract framework and axioms under which exact local computation of marginals is possible. The primitive objects of the framework are variables and valuations. The primitive operators of the framework are combination and marginalization. These operate on valuations. We state three axioms for these operators and we derive the possibility of local computation from the axioms. Next, we describe a propagation scheme for computing marginals of a valuation when we have a factorization of the valuation on a hypertree. Finally we show how the problem of computing marginals of joint probability distributions and joint belief functions fits the general framework.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Modifiable Combining Functions

Modifiable combining functions are a synthesis of two common approaches to combining evidence. They offer many of the advantages of these approaches and avoid some disadvantages. Because they facilitate the acquisition, representation, explanation, and modification of knowledge about combinations of evidence, they are proposed as a tool for knowledge engineers who build systems that reason under uncertainty, not as a normative theory of evidence.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Probability Judgement in Artificial Intelligence

This paper is concerned with two theories of probability judgment: the Bayesian theory and the theory of belief functions. It illustrates these theories with some simple examples and discusses some of the issues that arise when we try to implement them in expert systems. The Bayesian theory is well known; its main ideas go back to the work of Thomas Bayes (1702-1761). The theory of belief functions, often called the Dempster-Shafer theory in the artificial intelligence community, is less well known, but it has even older antecedents; belief-function arguments appear in the work of George Hooper (16401723) and James Bernoulli (1654-1705). For elementary expositions of the theory of belief functions, see Shafer (1976, 1985).

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Propagation of Belief Functions: A Distributed Approach

In this paper, we describe a scheme for propagating belief functions in certain kinds of trees using only local computations. This scheme generalizes the computational scheme proposed by Shafer and Logan1 for diagnostic trees of the type studied by Gordon and Shortliffe, and the slightly more general scheme given by Shafer for hierarchical evidence. It also generalizes the scheme proposed by Pearl for Bayesian causal trees (see Shenoy and Shafer). Pearl's causal trees and Gordon and Shortliffe's diagnostic trees are both ways of breaking the evidence that bears on a large problem down into smaller items of evidence that bear on smaller parts of the problem so that these smaller problems can be dealt with one at a time. This localization of effort is often essential in order to make the process of probability judgment feasible, both for the person who is making probability judgments and for the machine that is combining them. The basic structure for our scheme is a type of tree that generalizes both Pearl's and Gordon and Shortliffe's trees. Trees of this general type permit localized computation in Pearl's sense. They are based on qualitative judgments of conditional independence. We believe that the scheme we describe here will prove useful in expert systems. It is now clear that the successful propagation of probabilities or certainty factors in expert systems requires much more structure than can be provided in a pure production-system framework. Bayesian schemes, on the other hand, often make unrealistic demands for structure. The propagation of belief functions in trees and more general networks stands on a middle ground where some sensible and useful things can be done. We would like to emphasize that the basic idea of local computation for propagating probabilities is due to Judea Pearl. It is a very innovative idea; we do not believe that it can be found in the Bayesian literature prior to Pearl's work. We see our contribution as extending the usefulness of Pearl's idea by generalizing it from Bayesian probabilities to belief functions. In the next section, we give a brief introduction to belief functions. The notions of qualitative independence for partitions and a qualitative Markov tree are introduced in Section III. Finally, in Section IV, we describe a scheme for propagating belief functions in qualitative Markov trees.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Levy's zero-one law in game-theoretic probability

We prove a game-theoretic version of Levy's zero-one law, and deduce several corollaries from it, including non-stochastic versions of Kolmogorov's zero-one law, the ergodicity of Bernoulli shifts, and a zero-one law for dependent trials. Our secondary goal is to explore the basic definitions of game-theoretic probability theory, with Levy's zero-one law serving a useful role.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Probability-free pricing of adjusted American lookbacks

Consider an American option that pays G(X^*_t) when exercised at time t, where G is a positive increasing function, X^*_t := \sup_{s\le t}X_s, and X_s is the price of the underlying security at time s. Assuming zero interest rates, we show that the seller of this option can hedge his position by trading in the underlying security if he begins with initial capital X_0\int_{X_0}^{\infty}G(x)x^{-2}dx (and this is the smallest initial capital that allows him to hedge his position). This leads to strategies for trading that are always competitive both with a given strategy's current performance and, to a somewhat lesser degree, with its best performance so far. It also leads to methods of statistical testing that avoid sacrificing too much of the maximum statistical significance that they achieve in the course of accumulating data.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Test Martingales, Bayes Factors and $p$-Values

A nonnegative martingale with initial value equal to one measures evidence against a probabilistic hypothesis. The inverse of its value at some stopping time can be interpreted as a Bayes factor. If we exaggerate the evidence by considering the largest value attained so far by such a martingale, the exaggeration will be limited, and there are systematic ways to eliminate it. The inverse of the exaggerated value at some stopping time can be interpreted as a $p$-value. We give a simple characterization of all increasing functions that eliminate the exaggeration.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

A betting interpretation for probabilities and Dempster-Shafer degrees of belief

There are at least two ways to interpret numerical degrees of belief in terms of betting: (1) you can offer to bet at the odds defined by the degrees of belief, or (2) you can judge that a strategy for taking advantage of such betting offers will not multiply the capital it risks by a large factor. Both interpretations can be applied to ordinary additive probabilities and used to justify updating by conditioning. Only the second can be applied to Dempster-Shafer degrees of belief and used to justify Dempster's rule of combination.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Emile Borel's difficult days in 1941

The German forces occupying Paris arrested Emile Borel and three other members of the Académie des Sciences in October 1941 and released them about five weeks later. Why? We examine some relevant German and French archives and other sources and propose some hypotheses. In the process, we review how the Occupation was structured and how it dealt with French higher education and some French mathematicians.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

Insuring against loss of evidence in game-theoretic probability

We consider the game-theoretic scenario of testing the performance of Forecaster by Sceptic who gambles against the forecasts. Sceptic's current capital is interpreted as the amount of evidence he has found against Forecaster. Reporting the maximum of Sceptic's capital so far exaggerates the evidence. We characterize the set of all increasing functions that remove the exaggeration. This result can be used for insuring against loss of evidence.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access