[godelski]

I think you have this oversimplified. Stringing together inferences can take us in either direction. It really depends on how things are being done and this isn't always so obvious or simple. But just to show both directions I'll give two simple examples (real world holds many more complexities)

It is all about what is being modeled and how the inferences string together. If these are being multiplied, then yes, this is going to decreases as xy < x and xy < y for every x,y < 1.

But a good counter example is the classic Bayesian Inference example[0]. Suppose you have a test that detects vampirism with 95% accuracy (Pr(+|vampire) = 0.95) and has a false positive rate of 1% (Pr(+|mortal) = 0.01). But vampirism is rare, affecting only 0.1% of the population. This ends up meaning a positive test only gives us a 8.7% likelihood of a subject being a vampire (Pr(vampire|+). The solution here is that we repeat the testing. On our second test Pr(vampire) changes from 0.001 to 0.087 and Pr(vampire|+) goes to 89% and a third getting us to about 99%.

[0] Our equation is

                  Pr(+|vampire)Pr(vampire)
  Pr(vampire|+) = ------------------------
                           Pr(+)

And the crux is Pr(+) = Pr(+|vampire)Pr(vampire) + Pr(+|mortal)(1-Pr(vampire))

[p1necone]

Worth noting that solution only works if the false positives are totally random, which is probably not true of many real world cases and would be pretty hard to work out.

[godelski]

Definitely. Real world adds lots of complexities and nuances, but I was just trying to make the point that it matters how those inferences compound. That we can't just conclude that compounding inferences decreases likelihood

[Dylan16807]

Well they were talking about a chain, A->B, B->C, C->D.

You're talking about multiple pieces of evidence for the same statement. Your tests don't depend on any of the previous tests also being right.

[godelski]

Be careful with your description there, are you sure it doesn't apply to the Bayesian example (which was... illustrative...? And not supposed to be every possible example?)? We calculated f(f(f(x))), so I wouldn't say that this "doesn't depend on the previous 'test'". Take your chain, we can represent it with h(g(f(x))) (or (f∘g∘h)(x)). That clearly fits your case for when f=g=h. Don't lose sight of the abstractions.

[Dylan16807]

So in your example you can apply just one test result at a time, in any order. And the more pieces of evidence you apply, the stronger your argument gets.

f = "The test(s) say the patient is a vampire, with a .01 false positive rate."

f∘f∘f = "The test(s) say the patient is a vampire, with a .000001 false positive rate."

In the chain example f or g or h on its own is useless. Only f∘g∘h is relevant. And f∘g∘h is a lot weaker than f or g or h appears on its own.

This is what a logic chain looks like, adapted for vampirism to make it easier to compare:

f: "The test says situation 1 is true, with a 10% false positive rate."

g: "If situation 1 then situation 2 is true, with a 10% false positive rate."

h: "If situation 2 then the patient is a vampire, with a 10% false positive rate."

f∘g∘h = "The test says the patient is a vampire, with a 27% false positive rate."

So there are two key differences. One is the "if"s that make the false positives build up. The other is that only h tells you anything about vampires. f and g are mere setup, so they can only weaken h. At best f and g would have 100% reliability and h would be its original strength, 10% false positive. The false positive rate of h will never be decreased by adding more chain links, only increased. If you want a smaller false positive rate you need a separate piece of evidence. Like how your example has three similar but separate pieces of evidence.

[godelski]

Again, my only argument was that you can have both situations occur. We could still construct a f∘g∘h to increase probability if we want. I'm not saying it cannot go down, I'm saying there's no absolute rule you can follow.

[wombatpm]

Can’t you improve thing if you can calibrate with a known good vampire? You’d think NIST or the CDC would have one locked in a basement somewhere.

[godelski]

IDK, probably? I'm just trying to say that iterative inference doesn't strictly mean decreasing likelihood.

I'm not a virologist or whoever designs these kinds of medical tests. I don't even know the right word to describe the profession lol. But the question is orthogonal to what's being discussed here. I'm only guessing "probably" because usually having a good example helps in experimental design. But then again, why wouldn't the original test that we're using have done that already? Wouldn't that be how you get that 95% accurate test?

I can't tell you the biology stuff, I can just answer math and ML stuff and even then only so much.

[weard_beard]

GPT6 would come faster but we ran out of Casandra blood.

[ethbr1]

The thought of a BIPM Reference Vampire made me chuckle.

[tintor]

Assuming your vampire tests are independent.

[godelski]

Correct. And there's a lot of other assumptions. I did make a specific note that it was a simplified and illustrative example. And yes, in the real world I'd warn about being careful when making i.i.d. assumptions, since these assumptions are made far more than people realize.