Documentation

Linglib.Phenomena.DefaultReasoning.Studies.Spohn1988

Spohn (1988): Ranking Functions for Graded Belief Revision #

@cite{spohn-1988}

This study demonstrates ordinal conditional functions (OCFs) as a model of belief revision with graded evidence strength. The firmness parameter α from @cite{spohn-1988} Definition 6 distinguishes weak evidence (low α, e.g. hearsay) from strong evidence (high α, e.g. direct observation).

Key demonstrations #

  1. Evidence strength: Different α values produce different post-revision rankings — strong evidence pushes counter-evidence worlds further into disbelief than weak evidence does.

  2. Commutativity (Theorem 4): When two pieces of evidence satisfy the conditions of Theorem 4, the order of processing doesn't matter — verified for a concrete 4-world instance.

  3. Connection to NormalityOrder: Ranking functions induce connected (total) plausibility orderings, refining any Kratzer-style ordering source with explicit disbelief grades.

Scenario #

Four weather worlds with a prior ranking. Two pieces of evidence ("sunny" and "warm") are processed with varying firmness. Hand-computed conditioned rankings are verified against the A,α-conditionalization algorithm.

Four weather scenarios.

Instances For
    Equations
    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
    Instances For
      Equations
      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

      Prior ranking: sunny+warm is most normal (rank 0). Both rainy+warm and sunny+cold are mildly surprising (rank 1 each). Rainy+cold is most surprising (rank 2).

      This prior satisfies Theorem 4's conditions for "sunny" × "warm": κ(sunny ∩ warm) = 0 and κ(rainy ∩ warm) = 0.

      Equations
      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
      Instances For
        Equations
        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
        Instances For
          Equations
          • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
          Instances For

            Conditioning on "sunny" with different firmness values α.

            Prior ranks: sunny_warm=0, sunny_cold=1, rainy_warm=0, rainy_cold=2
            κ(sunny) = min(0,1) = 0, κ(¬sunny) = min(0,2) = 0
            
            A-part of sunny-worlds:  sunny_warm → 0-0=0, sunny_cold → 1-0=1
            A-part of ¬sunny-worlds: rainy_warm → 0-0=0, rainy_cold → 2-0=2
            
            conditionα with α:
              sunny_warm → 0, sunny_cold → 1,
              rainy_warm → α+0, rainy_cold → α+2
            

            After weak evidence for "sunny" (hearsay, α = 1). Rainy worlds only slightly more disbelieved than before.

            Equations
            • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
            Instances For

              After strong evidence for "sunny" (direct observation, α = 3). Rainy worlds pushed far into disbelief.

              Equations
              • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
              Instances For

                Both weak and strong evidence preserve the sunny belief (sunny_warm stays at rank 0).

                With weak evidence, rainy_warm is equally plausible as sunny_cold (both rank 1) — the agent isn't confident.

                With strong evidence, all rainy worlds are strictly less plausible than any sunny world.

                Process "sunny" (α=2) then "warm" (β=1), and vice versa. Theorem 4 predicts identical results when κ(sunny∩warm)=0 and κ(¬sunny∩warm)=0 — both satisfied by our prior.

                After "sunny" (α=2) then "warm" (β=1).

                Equations
                • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                Instances For

                  After "warm" (β=1) then "sunny" (α=2).

                  Equations
                  • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                  Instances For

                    Commutativity: processing order doesn't matter. Both sequences yield identical rankings on all worlds.

                    Detailed verification: hand computation.

                    Step 1: prior → conditionα "sunny" α=2 κ(sunny) = 0; aPart sunny: sw→0, sc→1 κ(¬sunny) = 0; aPart ¬sunny: rw→0, rc→2 Result: sw=0, sc=1, rw=2+0=2, rc=2+2=4

                    Step 2: result → conditionα "warm" β=1 κ(warm) = min(0,2) = 0; aPart warm: sw→0, rw→2 κ(¬warm) = min(1,4) = 1; aPart ¬warm: sc→0, rc→3 Result: sw=0, rw=2, sc=1+0=1, rc=1+3=4

                    Reverse: prior → conditionα "warm" β=1 → conditionα "sunny" α=2

                    Step 1: prior → conditionα "warm" β=1 κ(warm) = min(0,0) = 0; aPart warm: sw→0, rw→0 κ(¬warm) = min(1,2) = 1; aPart ¬warm: sc→0, rc→1 Result: sw=0, rw=0, sc=1+0=1, rc=1+1=2

                    Step 2: result → conditionα "sunny" α=2 κ(sunny) = min(0,1) = 0; aPart sunny: sw→0, sc→1 κ(¬sunny) = min(0,2) = 0; aPart ¬sunny: rw→0, rc→2 Result: sw=0, sc=1, rw=2+0=2, rc=2+2=4

                    The prior ranking induces a connected (total) plausibility ordering, refining any Kratzer-style ordering source with explicit disbelief grades. This is the structural connection between ranking functions and the 95+ files downstream of NormalityOrder.

                    The prior's belief set: sunny_warm is believed (rank 0). rainy_warm is also believed (rank 0 in this prior).

                    After conditioning on "sunny" (even weakly), the belief set changes: rainy_warm is no longer rank 0.

                    @cite{spohn-1988} §7 observes that ranking functions are the ordinal analogue of probability measures. The structural parallel:

                    | Probability (ℚ, ·, Σ)     | Ranking (ℕ, min, +)          |
                    |---------------------------|------------------------------|
                    | P(A) = Σ_{w∈A} P(w)      | κ(A) = min_{w∈A} κ(w)       |
                    | P(A|B) = P(A∩B)/P(B)     | κ(w|A) = κ(w) - κ(A)        |
                    | P(A∩B) = P(A)·P(B) (ind) | κ(A∩B) = κ(A) + κ(B) (ind)  |
                    
                    The exact homomorphism requires nonstandard probability (§7 uses
                    infinitesimal i with P(A) ~ i^{κ(A)}). For finite distributions,
                    the **ordering** is preserved: worlds with higher probability have
                    lower rank. We verify this concretely.
                    
                    See `Theories.Pragmatics.RSA.RankingBridge` for the formal
                    connection: `rankToPrior κ w = exp(-κ(w))` gives the exponential
                    prior, and `softmax_concentrates_unique` proves that softmax
                    with ranking scores concentrates on rank-0 worlds as α → ∞. 
                    

                    Order compatibility: weight ordering reflects rank ordering on all pairs of worlds.

                    Theorem 2(a) verified: for "sunny", either κ(sunny) = 0 or κ(¬sunny) = 0. In this prior, κ(sunny) = 0.

                    Independence under ranking: sunny and warm are independent. κ(sunny ∩ warm) = κ(sunny_warm) = 0 = κ(sunny) + κ(warm) = 0 + 0.