|
|
|
|
|
by wnoise
2043 days ago
|
|
What I don't understand is _what_ these applications are.
What does this surprise value tell me, and how can it be calibrated to anything quantitative? What's the equivalent of statistics that I can use to alter my original model's rankings to conform to what I observe? I can understand ranking as coarse-graining of probability if there's some way to approximately map it back to the standard notion of probability. On the other hand, using rank to direct collections of traces in a well-defined order is admittedly a neat trick; I can see using it to find something like the "most reasonable" or "easiest to explain" solution to a given logic problem. (I have actually seen a hand-coded version for Sudoku that attempts to minimize the backtracking depth to make it as easy to explain as possible.) But when would I want to do that to a program where the ranks represent instead how common a given event is? Verifying the no-exception case first? Is that useful? |
|
But for subjective belief they're still useful. Consider the problem of diagnosing a system with components that fail in rare cases. However we have no idea about failure probabilities. We can then use ranks. A diagnosis for some observed behaviour would then be the least surprising (i.e., lowest ranked) failure state that explains the observed behaviour. This is also the reason for least-surprising-first execution: the most important prediction or hypothesis is the most likely one and thus the least surprising one. There are some concrete examples in the paper which demonstrate this.
I am currently thinking about combining probabilities with ranks so that you can reason about both kinds of uncertainty in the same model. This could be implemented using a programming language that supports both ranked choice statements and probabilistic choice statements.