Belief formation and the persistence of biased beliefs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.08466v1
• Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 16:27:04 GMT
• Title: Belief formation and the persistence of biased beliefs
• Authors: Olivier Compte
• Abstract summary: We propose a belief-formation model where agents attempt to discriminate between two theories. In our model, limitations on information processing provide incentives to censor weak evidence.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: We propose a belief-formation model where agents attempt to discriminate between two theories, and where the asymmetry in strength between confirming and disconfirming evidence tilts beliefs in favor of theories that generate strong (and possibly rare) confirming evidence and weak (and frequent) disconfirming evidence. In our model, limitations on information processing provide incentives to censor weak evidence, with the consequence that for some discrimination problems, evidence may become mostly one-sided, independently of the true underlying theory. Sophisticated agents who know the characteristics of the censored data-generating process are not lured by this accumulation of ``evidence'', but less sophisticated ones end up with biased beliefs.

Related papers

• Lean-STaR: Learning to Interleave Thinking and Proving [53.923617816215774]
  We present Lean-STaR, a framework for training language models to produce informal thoughts prior to each step of a proof. Lean-STaR achieves state-of-the-art results on the miniF2F-test benchmark within the Lean theorem proving environment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-14T01:43:07Z)
• A Belief Model for Conflicting and Uncertain Evidence -- Connecting Dempster-Shafer Theory and the Topology of Evidence [8.295493796476766]
  We propose a new model for measuring degrees of beliefs based on possibly inconsistent, incomplete, and uncertain evidence. We show that computing degrees of belief with this model is #P-complete in general.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-06T09:30:48Z)
• Read it Twice: Towards Faithfully Interpretable Fact Verification by Revisiting Evidence [59.81749318292707]
  We propose a fact verification model named ReRead to retrieve evidence and verify claim. The proposed system is able to achieve significant improvements upon best-reported models under different settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-02T03:23:14Z)
• Uncertain Evidence in Probabilistic Models and Stochastic Simulators [80.40110074847527]
  We consider the problem of performing Bayesian inference in probabilistic models where observations are accompanied by uncertainty, referred to as uncertain evidence' We explore how to interpret uncertain evidence, and by extension the importance of proper interpretation as it pertains to inference about latent variables. We devise concrete guidelines on how to account for uncertain evidence and we provide new insights, particularly regarding consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-21T20:32:59Z)
• Logical Satisfiability of Counterfactuals for Faithful Explanations in NLI [60.142926537264714]
  We introduce the methodology of Faithfulness-through-Counterfactuals. It generates a counterfactual hypothesis based on the logical predicates expressed in the explanation. It then evaluates if the model's prediction on the counterfactual is consistent with that expressed logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T03:40:59Z)
• Topic-Aware Evidence Reasoning and Stance-Aware Aggregation for Fact Verification [19.130541561303293]
  We propose a novel topic-aware evidence reasoning and stance-aware aggregation model for fact verification. Tests conducted on two benchmark datasets demonstrate the superiority of the proposed model over several state-of-the-art approaches for fact verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-02T14:33:12Z)
• AmbiFC: Fact-Checking Ambiguous Claims with Evidence [57.7091560922174]
  We present AmbiFC, a fact-checking dataset with 10k claims derived from real-world information needs. We analyze disagreements arising from ambiguity when comparing claims against evidence in AmbiFC. We develop models for predicting veracity handling this ambiguity via soft labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-01T17:40:08Z)
• Time-Aware Evidence Ranking for Fact-Checking [56.247512670779045]
  We investigate the hypothesis that the timestamp of a Web page is crucial to how it should be ranked for a given claim. Our study reveals that time-aware evidence ranking not only surpasses relevance assumptions based purely on semantic similarity or position in a search results list, but also improves veracity predictions of time-sensitive claims in particular.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-10T13:39:49Z)
• DTCA: Decision Tree-based Co-Attention Networks for Explainable Claim Verification [16.144566353074314]
  We propose a Decision Tree-based Co-Attention model (DTCA) to discover evidence for explainable claim verification. Specifically, we first construct Decision Tree-based Evidence model (DTE) to select comments with high credibility as evidence in a transparent and interpretable way. We then design Co-attention Self-attention networks (CaSa) to make the selected evidence interact with claims.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-28T12:19:46Z)

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.