System of Spheres-based Two Level Credibility-limited Revisions
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.05062v1
- Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 07:10:39 GMT
- Title: System of Spheres-based Two Level Credibility-limited Revisions
- Authors: Marco Garapa (University of Madeira), Eduardo Ferme (University of
Madeira), Maur\'icio D.L. Reis (University of Madeira)
- Abstract summary: When revising by a two level credibility-limited revision, two levels of credibility and one level of incredibility are considered.
We propose a construction for two level credibility-limited revision operators based on Grove's systems of spheres.
- Score: 0.0
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: Two level credibility-limited revision is a non-prioritized revision
operation. When revising by a two level credibility-limited revision, two
levels of credibility and one level of incredibility are considered. When
revising by a sentence at the highest level of credibility, the operator
behaves as a standard revision, if the sentence is at the second level of
credibility, then the outcome of the revision process coincides with a standard
contraction by the negation of that sentence. If the sentence is not credible,
then the original belief set remains unchanged. In this paper, we propose a
construction for two level credibility-limited revision operators based on
Grove's systems of spheres and present an axiomatic characterization for these
operators.
Related papers
- Credibility-Limited Revision for Epistemic Spaces [0.0]
We extend the class of credibility-limited revision operators in a way that all AGM revision operators are included.
A semantic characterization of extended credibility-limited revision operators that employ total preorders on possible worlds is presented.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-09-11T09:15:43Z) - Cognitive Bias and Belief Revision [0.0]
We formalise three types of cognitive bias within the framework of belief revision.
These are confirmation bias, framing bias, and anchoring bias.
We investigate the reliability of biased belief revision methods in truth tracking.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-07-11T07:13:52Z) - End-to-End Page-Level Assessment of Handwritten Text Recognition [69.55992406968495]
HTR systems increasingly face the end-to-end page-level transcription of a document.
Standard metrics do not take into account the inconsistencies that might appear.
We propose a two-fold evaluation, where the transcription accuracy and the RO goodness are considered separately.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-01-14T15:43:07Z) - Rethink about the Word-level Quality Estimation for Machine Translation
from Human Judgement [57.72846454929923]
We create a benchmark dataset, emphHJQE, where the expert translators directly annotate poorly translated words.
We propose two tag correcting strategies, namely tag refinement strategy and tree-based annotation strategy, to make the TER-based artificial QE corpus closer to emphHJQE.
The results show our proposed dataset is more consistent with human judgement and also confirm the effectiveness of the proposed tag correcting strategies.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-09-13T02:37:12Z) - Towards Automated Document Revision: Grammatical Error Correction,
Fluency Edits, and Beyond [46.130399041820716]
We introduce a new document-revision corpus, TETRA, where professional editors revised academic papers sampled from the ACL anthology.
We show the uniqueness of TETRA compared with existing document revision corpora and demonstrate that a fine-tuned pre-trained language model can discriminate the quality of documents after revision even when the difference is subtle.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-05-23T17:37:20Z) - On Limited Non-Prioritised Belief Revision Operators with Dynamic Scope [2.7071541526963805]
We introduce the concept of dynamic-limited revision, which are revisions expressible by a total preorder over a limited set of worlds.
For a belief change operator, we consider the scope, which consists of those beliefs which yield success of revision.
We show that for each set satisfying single sentence closure and disjunction completeness there exists a dynamic-limited revision having the union of this set with the beliefs set as scope.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-08-17T17:22:29Z) - Post-Contextual-Bandit Inference [57.88785630755165]
Contextual bandit algorithms are increasingly replacing non-adaptive A/B tests in e-commerce, healthcare, and policymaking.
They can both improve outcomes for study participants and increase the chance of identifying good or even best policies.
To support credible inference on novel interventions at the end of the study, we still want to construct valid confidence intervals on average treatment effects, subgroup effects, or value of new policies.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-06-01T12:01:51Z) - On the use of evidence theory in belief base revision [0.0]
We propose the idea of credible belief base revision yielding to define two new formula-based revision operators.
These operators stem from consistent subbases maximal with respect to credibility instead of set inclusion and cardinality.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-09-24T12:45:32Z) - Perception Score, A Learned Metric for Open-ended Text Generation
Evaluation [62.7690450616204]
We propose a novel and powerful learning-based evaluation metric: Perception Score.
The method measures the overall quality of the generation and scores holistically instead of only focusing on one evaluation criteria, such as word overlapping.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-08-07T10:48:40Z) - Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and
evaluate faithfulness? [58.13152510843004]
With the growing popularity of deep-learning based NLP models, comes a need for interpretable systems.
What is interpretability, and what constitutes a high-quality interpretation?
We call for more clearly differentiating between different desired criteria an interpretation should satisfy, and focus on the faithfulness criteria.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-04-07T20:15:28Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.