- SIPTA News - lists.sipta.org

[SIPTA] Re: SCAN2020 abstract submission reminder

by Kreinovich

June 25, 2021

[SIPTA] Re: CFP for AICI'2022

by Kreinovich

June 22, 2021

[SIPTA] Re: FnPIG, the Fuzzy & Possibility Interest Group

by Kreinovich

June 19, 2021

[SIPTA] Re: SC-AIS-2021 and MICAI 2021

by Kreinovich

June 17, 2021

[SIPTA] FW: 10th International Workshop on Reliable Engineering Computing REC 2023

by Kreinovich

June 17, 2021

[SIPTA] Final Call for Papers: NMR 2021

by Richard Booth

June 17, 2021

[SIPTA] SIPTA website - New blog post

by IGNACIO MONTES GUTIERREZ

June 8, 2021

[SIPTA] mark your calendars for 2023

by Kreinovich

June 7, 2021

[SIPTA] Re: CfP SCAN2020 online

by Kreinovich

FYI, papers on verified computations related to imprecise probabilities are welcome too, especially papers that use interval techniques. -----Original Message----- From: Csendes Tibor <csendes(a)inf.u-szeged.hu> Sent: Saturday, June 5, 2021 9:18 AM The 19th International Symposium on Scientific Computing, Computer Arithmetic, and Verified Numerical Computations will be held online between the 13th and 17th of September 2021 (Monday to Friday). The five plenary speakers will be Jay Mireles James, Fabienne Jézéquel, Kazuaki Tanaka, and the two Moore Prize winners to be announced. Those interested in presenting a contribution are asked to submit a short abstract (1 to 2 pages in PDF-format) using the LaTeX template. Submission of the abstract should be done no later than June 30, 2021 by easychair: https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=scan2020 The accepted abstracts will be published in electronic form at the web-site of SCAN2020: http://www.inf.u-szeged.hu/scan2020/program and in a printed book of abstracts. At least one author of an accepted abstract must pay the registration fee to be published in the book of abstracts. The registration fee will be 100 Euro, that contains the volume of abstracts, the online conference environment, and other organization costs. We plan to have special issues of three scientific journals (among them Acta Cybernetica and Reliable Computing). Please share the information with your colleagues. We are looking forward to seeing you online! The Organizing Committee: Balázs Bánhelyi (chair), Tibor Csendes, Boglárka G.-Tóth, and Tamás Vinkó -- Dr. Csendes Tibor egyetemi tanár, Szegedi Tudományegyetem, Informatikai Intézet H-6701 Szeged, Pf. 652, Hungary csendes(a)inf.u-szeged.hu www.inf.u-szeged.hu/~csendes/ Tel.: +36 62 544 305, +36 30 314 1626, Fax: +36 62 546 397 Anagrammák: Consider best; Drei Cent Boss; Csend, esti bor...

June 5, 2021

[SIPTA] Call for participation: Reasoning Web Summer School (RW) 2021

by Ivan José Varzinczak

June 1, 2021

[SIPTA] [jobs] PhD studentships in Epistemic Artificial Intelligence @ Oxford Brookes

by Fabio Cuzzolin

May 28, 2021

[SIPTA] 2nd Call for Papers: NMR 2021

by Richard Booth

May 26, 2021

[SIPTA] International Workshop on Reliable Engineering Computing 2021 and 2023

by Kreinovich

May 19, 2021

[SIPTA] 1st Call for Papers: NMR 2021

by Richard Booth

May 5, 2021

[SIPTA] Organized Session CMStatistics 2021

by IGNACIO MONTES GUTIERREZ

May 2, 2021

[SIPTA] FW: A Request

by Kreinovich

May 2, 2021

[SIPTA] Reasoning Web Summer School 2021

by Ivan José Varzinczak

May 1, 2021

[SIPTA] BELIEF 2021 - last call for papers - final submission deadline

by frederic.pichon

========================================================================= 6th International Conference on Belief Functions (BELIEF 2021) Dates: October 15th-19th, 2021 Location: Shanghai, China (online participation also possible) Final submission deadline: May 9th, 2021 Notification: June 25th, 2021 Final version: July 15th, 2021 Further information: https://www.lgi2a.univ-artois.fr/events/belief2021/ ========================================================================= The theory of belief functions, also referred to as evidence theory or Dempster-Shafer theory, was first introduced by Arthur P. Dempster in the context of statistical inference, and was later developed by Glenn Shafer as a general framework for modelling epistemic uncertainty. These early contributions have been the starting points of many important developments, including the transferable belief model and the theory of hints. The theory of belief functions is now well established as a general framework for reasoning with uncertainty, and has well understood connections to other frameworks such as probability, possibility and imprecise probability theories. It has been applied in diverse areas such as machine learning, information fusion and risk analysis. The BELIEF conferences (sponsored by the Belief Functions and Applications Society https://www.bfasociety.org/) are dedicated to the confrontation of ideas, the reporting of recent achievements and the presentation of the wide range of applications of this theory. The first edition of this conference series was held in Brest, France, in 2010. Later editions were held in Compiègne, France in 2012, Oxford, UK in 2014, Prague, Czech Republic in 2016, and again in Compiègne, France in 2018. The Sixth International Conference on Belief Functions (BELIEF 2021) will be located in Shanghai, China, on October 15-19, 2021, together with the 2021 International Conference on Cognitive analytics, Granular computing, and Three-way decisions (CCGT). It will be held both onsite and online due to the COVID-19 situation (see Venue and Registration below for details). Submission and Proceedings ========================== The proceedings of the BELIEF 2021 conference will be published by Springer-Verlag in a volume of the Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNCS/LNAI) series and indexed by: ISI Web of Science; EI Engineering Index; ACM Digital Library; dblp; Google Scholar; IO-Port; MathSciNet; Scopus; Zentralblatt MATH. Previous BELIEF proceedings can be found on SpringerLink. Authors should consult Springer’s authors’ guidelines and use their proceedings templates, either for LaTeX or for Word, for the preparation of their papers. Springer encourages authors to include their ORCIDs in their papers. In addition, the corresponding author of each paper, acting on behalf of all of the authors of that paper, must complete and sign a Consent-to-Publish form. The corresponding author signing the copyright form should match the corresponding author marked on the paper. Once the files have been sent to Springer, changes relating to the authorship of the papers cannot be made. IJAR Special issue ================== Authors of selected papers from the BELIEF 2021 conference will be invited to submit extended versions of their papers for possible inclusion in a special issue of the International Journal of Approximate Reasoning (https://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-approximate-reas…) IJAR Best Paper Award ===================== Thanks to the continued support of the International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, the best papers presented at the conference will be distinguished by the IJAR Best Paper Award. The prize will consist of a certificate and 1000 euros, which will be split between the winners. Invited speakers ================ We are very happy to announce that the following speakers have agreed to give an invited talk at the conference: - Associate Prof. Chunlai Zhou (Renmin University, China), title of the talk: "Basic Utility Theory for Belief Functions" - Prof. Deqiang Han (Xi'an Jiaotong University, China), title of the talk: "Learning-based Modelized Methods for Evidence Combination" - Prof. Zengjing Chen (Shandong University, China), title of the talk: "A Central Limit Theorem for Sets of Probability Measures" - Prof. Van-Nam Huynh (Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Japan), title of the talk: "Machine Learning coupled with Evidential Reasoning for User Preferences" Tutorials ========= The program of this edition of the BELIEF conference will include tutorials from experts on belief functions and their applications. Confirmed tutorials: - "Generalized Dempster-Shafer theory based on random fuzzy sets" (Prof. Thierry Denoeux, Université de technologie de Compiègne, France) - "Introduction to information fusion in belief function theory" (Prof. Frédéric Pichon, Université d’Artois, Béthune, France). Venue and Registration ====================== To accommodate for the uncertainties surrounding travel possibilities due to the COVID-19 pandemic, participants have two options to attend the conference: either online or onsite. The onsite event will take place at the Gu Cun Park Hotel (No.4788 Hu Tai Road, Baoshan District, Shanghai). The registration fee for the onsite participants will include the following items: - Full attendance to the two conferences (BELIEF/CCGT), including keynote talks and tutorials - Online BELIEF 2021 conference proceedings - Gala dinner - Welcome reception - Conference bag - Coffee breaks and lunches We expect most keynote talks to be given onsite (and tutorials to be given online). Online participants will be able to join and participate to the onsite event via an online platform. They will benefit from a discounted registration fee, which will include the following items: - Full attendance to the two conferences (BELIEF/CCGT), including keynote talks and tutorials - Online BELIEF 2021 conference proceedings Students (BFAS Grants) ====================== The onsite and online student registration fees will be reduced in comparison to the standard onsite and online registration fees. Furthermore, the Belief functions and Applications Society (BFAS) is offering a number of grants to allow students with limited funding opportunities to present their work at the conference. The grant covers the registration fee (online or onsite fee depending on the chosen mode of participation by the student). Candidates should send the following information: - CV - recommendation letter from supervisor - copy of paper accepted at BELIEF 2021 to the secretary of BFAS, Dr. Anne-Laure Jousselme (anne-laure.jousselme(a)cmre.nato.int) ============================================================ BELIEF-CCGT Conference co-chairs Thierry Denoeux (Université de Technologie de Compiègne, France), Duoqian Miao (Tongji University, Shanghai, China), Yiyu Yao (University of Regina, Canada). BELIEF 2021 Program Committee co-chairs Zhunga Liu (liuzhunga(a)nwpu.edu.cn, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xian, China), Frédéric Pichon (frederic.pichon(a)univ-artois.fr, Université d'Artois, Béthune, France). BELIEF 2021 Steering committee Eric Lefevre (Université d'Artois, France), Zhunga Liu (Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xian, China), David Mercier (Université d'Artois, France), Frédéric Pichon (Université d'Artois, France), Zhihua Wei (Tongji University, Shanghai, China), Xiaodong Yue (Shanghai University, China) BELIEF 2021 Organization chair Xiaodong Yue, Shanghai University, China The organizers would be grateful if you could inform potentially interested participants of this conference.

April 27, 2021

[SIPTA] [jobs] Research fellow in Epistemic Artificial Intelligence

by Fabio Cuzzolin

April 22, 2021

[SIPTA] ISIPTA 2021: Call for Posters (deadline 15 May)

by Serafin Moral

April 21, 2021

[SIPTA] IPMU 2022 Announcement

by Davide Elio Ciucci

April 19, 2021

[SIPTA] imprecise-probability tag at math.stackexchange

by Abrams

April 10, 2021

[SIPTA] BELIEF 2021 - call for papers - extended submission deadline

by frederic.pichon

========================================================================= 6th International Conference on Belief Functions (BELIEF 2021) Dates: October 15th-19th, 2021 Location: Shanghai, China (online participation also possible) Extended submission deadline: April 30th, 2021 Notification: June 16th, 2021 Final version: July 7th, 2021 Further information: https://www.lgi2a.univ-artois.fr/events/belief2021/ ========================================================================= The theory of belief functions, also referred to as evidence theory or Dempster-Shafer theory, was first introduced by Arthur P. Dempster in the context of statistical inference, and was later developed by Glenn Shafer as a general framework for modelling epistemic uncertainty. These early contributions have been the starting points of many important developments, including the transferable belief model and the theory of hints. The theory of belief functions is now well established as a general framework for reasoning with uncertainty, and has well understood connections to other frameworks such as probability, possibility and imprecise probability theories. It has been applied in diverse areas such as machine learning, information fusion and risk analysis. The BELIEF conferences (sponsored by the Belief Functions and Applications Society https://www.bfasociety.org/) are dedicated to the confrontation of ideas, the reporting of recent achievements and the presentation of the wide range of applications of this theory. The first edition of this conference series was held in Brest, France, in 2010. Later editions were held in Compiègne, France in 2012, Oxford, UK in 2014, Prague, Czech Republic in 2016, and again in Compiègne, France in 2018. The Sixth International Conference on Belief Functions (BELIEF 2021) will be located in Shanghai, China, on October 15-19, 2021, together with the 2021 International Conference on Cognitive analytics, Granular computing, and Three-way decisions (CCGT). It will be held both onsite and online due to the COVID-19 situation (see Venue and Registration below for details). Submission and Proceedings ========================== The proceedings of the BELIEF 2021 conference will be published by Springer-Verlag in a volume of the Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNCS/LNAI) series and indexed by: ISI Web of Science; EI Engineering Index; ACM Digital Library; dblp; Google Scholar; IO-Port; MathSciNet; Scopus; Zentralblatt MATH. Previous BELIEF proceedings can be found on SpringerLink. Authors should consult Springer’s authors’ guidelines and use their proceedings templates, either for LaTeX or for Word, for the preparation of their papers. Springer encourages authors to include their ORCIDs in their papers. In addition, the corresponding author of each paper, acting on behalf of all of the authors of that paper, must complete and sign a Consent-to-Publish form. The corresponding author signing the copyright form should match the corresponding author marked on the paper. Once the files have been sent to Springer, changes relating to the authorship of the papers cannot be made. IJAR Special issue ================== Authors of selected papers from the BELIEF 2021 conference will be invited to submit extended versions of their papers for possible inclusion in a special issue of the International Journal of Approximate Reasoning (https://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-approximate-reas…) IJAR Best Paper Award ===================== Thanks to the continued support of the International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, the best papers presented at the conference will be distinguished by the IJAR Best Paper Award. The prize will consist of a certificate and 1000 euros, which will be split between the winners. Invited speakers ================ We are very happy to announce that the following speakers have agreed to give an invited talk at the conference: - Associate Prof. Chunlai Zhou (Renmin University, China), title of the talk: "Basic Utility Theory for Belief Functions" - Prof. Deqiang Han (Xi'an Jiaotong University, China), title of the talk: "Learning-based Modelized Methods for Evidence Combination" - Prof. Zengjing Chen (Shandong University, China), title of the talk: "A Central Limit Theorem for Sets of Probability Measures" - Prof. Van-Nam Huynh (Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Japan), title of the talk: "Machine Learning coupled with Evidential Reasoning for User Preferences" Tutorials ========= The program of this edition of the BELIEF conference will include tutorials from experts on belief functions and their applications. Confirmed tutorials: - "Generalized Dempster-Shafer theory based on random fuzzy sets" (Prof. Thierry Denoeux, Université de technologie de Compiègne, France) - "Introduction to information fusion in belief function theory" (Prof. Frédéric Pichon, Université d’Artois, Béthune, France). Venue and Registration ====================== To accommodate for the uncertainties surrounding travel possibilities due to the COVID-19 pandemic, participants have two options to attend the conference: either online or onsite. The onsite event will take place at the Gu Cun Park Hotel (No.4788 Hu Tai Road, Baoshan District, Shanghai). The registration fee for the onsite participants will include the following items: - Full attendance to the two conferences (BELIEF/CCGT), including keynote talks and tutorials - Online BELIEF 2021 conference proceedings - Gala dinner - Welcome reception - Conference bag - Coffee breaks and lunches We expect most keynote talks to be given onsite (and tutorials to be given online). Online participants will be able to join and participate to the onsite event via an online platform. They will benefit from a discounted registration fee, which will include the following items: - Full attendance to the two conferences (BELIEF/CCGT), including keynote talks and tutorials - Online BELIEF 2021 conference proceedings Students (BFAS Grants) ====================== The onsite and online student registration fees will be reduced in comparison to the standard onsite and online registration fees. Furthermore, the Belief functions and Applications Society (BFAS) is offering a number of grants to allow students with limited funding opportunities to present their work at the conference. The grant covers the registration fee (online or onsite fee depending on the chosen mode of participation by the student). Candidates should send the following information: - CV - recommendation letter from supervisor - copy of paper accepted at BELIEF 2021 to the secretary of BFAS, Dr. Anne-Laure Jousselme (anne-laure.jousselme(a)cmre.nato.int) ============================================================ BELIEF-CCGT Conference co-chairs Thierry Denoeux (Université de Technologie de Compiègne, France), Duoqian Miao (Tongji University, Shanghai, China), Yiyu Yao (University of Regina, Canada). BELIEF 2021 Program Committee co-chairs Zhunga Liu (liuzhunga(a)nwpu.edu.cn, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xian, China), Frédéric Pichon (frederic.pichon(a)univ-artois.fr, Université d'Artois, Béthune, France). BELIEF 2021 Steering committee Eric Lefevre (Université d'Artois, France), Zhunga Liu (Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xian, China), David Mercier (Université d'Artois, France), Frédéric Pichon (Université d'Artois, France), Zhihua Wei (Tongji University, Shanghai, China), Xiaodong Yue (Shanghai University, China) BELIEF 2021 Organization chair Xiaodong Yue, Shanghai University, China The organizers would be grateful if you could inform potentially interested participants of this conference.

April 9, 2021

[SIPTA] FW: Information Update Regarding IEEE SSCI 2021

by Kreinovich

April 3, 2021

[SIPTA] [jobs] Research fellow in Epistemic Artificial Intelligence - May 3

by Fabio Cuzzolin

March 31, 2021

[SIPTA] Re: Call for papers: Symposium on “Optimization, Uncertainty and Probability”, IMECE2021- International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition, Virtual Conference, November 1-4, 2021

by Kreinovich

March 16, 2021

[SIPTA] BELIEF 2021 - Third call for papers

by frederic.pichon

========================================================================= 6th International Conference on Belief Functions (BELIEF 2021) Dates: October 15th-19th, 2021 Location: Shanghai, China (online participation also possible) Submission deadline: April 15th, 2021 Notification: May 31st, 2021 Final version: June 30th, 2021 Further information: https://www.lgi2a.univ-artois.fr/events/belief2021/ ========================================================================= The theory of belief functions, also referred to as evidence theory or Dempster-Shafer theory, was first introduced by Arthur P. Dempster in the context of statistical inference, and was later developed by Glenn Shafer as a general framework for modelling epistemic uncertainty. These early contributions have been the starting points of many important developments, including the transferable belief model and the theory of hints. The theory of belief functions is now well established as a general framework for reasoning with uncertainty, and has well understood connections to other frameworks such as probability, possibility and imprecise probability theories. It has been applied in diverse areas such as machine learning, information fusion and risk analysis. The BELIEF conferences (sponsored by the Belief Functions and Applications Society https://www.bfasociety.org/) are dedicated to the confrontation of ideas, the reporting of recent achievements and the presentation of the wide range of applications of this theory. The first edition of this conference series was held in Brest, France, in 2010. Later editions were held in Compiègne, France in 2012, Oxford, UK in 2014, Prague, Czech Republic in 2016, and again in Compiègne, France in 2018. The Sixth International Conference on Belief Functions (BELIEF 2021) will be located in Shanghai, China, on October 15-19, 2021, together with the 2021 International Conference on Cognitive analytics, Granular computing, and Three-way decisions (CCGT). It will be held both onsite and online due to the COVID-19 situation (see Venue and Registration below for details). Submission and Proceedings ========================== The proceedings of the BELIEF 2021 conference will be published by Springer-Verlag in a volume of the Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNCS/LNAI) series and indexed by: ISI Web of Science; EI Engineering Index; ACM Digital Library; dblp; Google Scholar; IO-Port; MathSciNet; Scopus; Zentralblatt MATH. Previous BELIEF proceedings can be found on SpringerLink. Authors should consult Springer’s authors’ guidelines and use their proceedings templates, either for LaTeX or for Word, for the preparation of their papers. Springer encourages authors to include their ORCIDs in their papers. In addition, the corresponding author of each paper, acting on behalf of all of the authors of that paper, must complete and sign a Consent-to-Publish form. The corresponding author signing the copyright form should match the corresponding author marked on the paper. Once the files have been sent to Springer, changes relating to the authorship of the papers cannot be made. IJAR Special issue ================== Authors of selected papers from the BELIEF 2021 conference will be invited to submit extended versions of their papers for possible inclusion in a special issue of the International Journal of Approximate Reasoning (https://www.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-approximate-reas…) Invited speakers ================ We are very happy to announce that the following speakers have agreed to give an invited talk at the conference: - Associate Prof. Chunlai Zhou (Renmin University, China), title of the talk: "Basic Utility Theory for Belief Functions" - Prof. Deqiang Han (Xi'an Jiaotong University, China), title of the talk: "Learning-based Modelized Methods for Evidence Combination" - Prof. Zengjing Chen (Shandong University, China), title of the talk to be announced - Prof. Van-Nam Huynh (Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Japan), title of the talk to be announced Tutorials ========= The program of this edition of the BELIEF conference will include tutorials from experts on belief functions and their applications. Confirmed tutorials: - "Generalized Dempster-Shafer theory based on random fuzzy sets" (Prof. Thierry Denoeux, Université de technologie de Compiègne, France) - "Introduction to information fusion in belief function theory" (Prof. Frédéric Pichon, Université d’Artois, Béthune, France). Venue and Registration ====================== To accommodate for the uncertainties surrounding travel possibilities due to the COVID-19 pandemic, participants have two options to attend the conference: either online or onsite. The onsite event will take place at the Gu Cun Park Hotel (No.4788 Hu Tai Road, Baoshan District, Shanghai). The registration fee for the onsite participants will include the following items: - Full attendance to the two conferences (BELIEF/CCGT), including keynote talks and tutorials - Online BELIEF 2021 conference proceedings - Gala dinner - Welcome reception - Conference bag - Coffee breaks and lunches We expect most keynote talks to be given onsite (and tutorials to be given online). Online participants will be able to join and participate to the onsite event via an online platform. They will benefit from a discounted registration fee, which will include the following items: - Full attendance to the two conferences (BELIEF/CCGT), including keynote talks and tutorials - Online BELIEF 2021 conference proceedings Students ======== The onsite and online student registration fees will be reduced in comparison to the standard onsite and online registration fees. Furthermore, the Belief functions and Applications Society (BFAS) is offering a number of grants to allow students with limited funding opportunities to present their work at the conference. The grant covers the registration fee (online or onsite fee depending on the chosen mode of participation by the student). Candidates should send the following information: - CV - recommendation letter from supervisor - copy of paper accepted at BELIEF 2021 to the secretary of BFAS, Dr. Anne-Laure Jousselme (anne-laure.jousselme(a)cmre.nato.int) ============================================================ BELIEF-CCGT Conference co-chairs Thierry Denoeux (Université de Technologie de Compiègne, France), Duoqian Miao (Tongji University, Shanghai, China), Yiyu Yao (University of Regina, Canada). BELIEF 2021 Program Committee co-chairs Zhunga Liu (liuzhunga(a)nwpu.edu.cn, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xian, China), Frédéric Pichon (frederic.pichon(a)univ-artois.fr, Université d'Artois, Béthune, France). BELIEF 2021 Steering committee Eric Lefevre (Université d'Artois, France), Zhunga Liu (Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xian, China), David Mercier (Université d'Artois, France), Frédéric Pichon (Université d'Artois, France), Zhihua Wei (Tongji University, Shanghai, China), Xiaodong Yue (Shanghai University, China) BELIEF 2021 Organization chair Xiaodong Yue, Shanghai University, China The organizers would be grateful if you could inform potentially interested participants of this conference.

March 16, 2021

[SIPTA] FYI: Workshop on Reliable Engineering Computing REC'2021 will be fully online

by Kreinovich

March 14, 2021

[SIPTA] FW: update on the 2021 World Congress of International Fuzzy Systems Association

by Kreinovich

March 14, 2021

[SIPTA] FW: CoProD'21 call for papers

by Kreinovich

March 14, 2021

[SIPTA] [jobs] Research fellow in Epistemic Artificial Intelligence (March 28)

by Fabio Cuzzolin

March 4, 2021

[SIPTA] Re: Deadline of workshop proposals soon

by Kreinovich

FYI, imprecise probabilities are one of the highlighted topics -----Original Message----- From: Cassio de Campos Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 10:29 AM https://www.auai.org/uai2021/call_for_workshops Submission deadline: March 8, 2021, 23:59 UTC We invite submissions of workshop proposals for the UAI 2021 conference. Workshops will be held virtually on July 30th following the main conference. Each workshop will be allocated half a day, starting at 6am or 6pm US Pacific Time. The goal of the workshops is to provide an informal forum for research topics that are relevant to the UAI community, with emphasis on the discussion of open problems and challenges. Workshop organisers will be in charge of arranging participation, content, and moderation of the workshops. Requirements A significant portion of the workshops should be dedicated to contributed content. Workshop organisers can decide whether contributions will consist of full papers or (extended) abstracts. We encourage workshop organisers to consider diversity aspects when creating the lists of invited speakers and panellists. In particular, we welcome the inclusion of early-career researchers. In addition to the aspects above, proposals will be evaluated based on the following criteria: • Relevance to the UAI audience • Potential impact • Quality & clarity of the proposal • Organisers' relevant expertise The workshops should comply with the following requirements • Call for papers/abstracts: Before April 15th • Paper/abstract submission deadline: Between May 15th and May 31st • Paper/abstract notification: Before June 30th Submission Instructions Important dates: • Submission deadline: March 8, 2021, 23:59 UTC (this is a strict deadline) • Notification: April 2, 2021 Proposals should be in single column A4 or letter .pdf format, with font size 11 or greater, and no longer than two pages (excluding organisers’ details and bibliographic references). Proposals should be sent to the following email address: uai2021workshopchair(a)gmail.com. Proposals should contain • Workshop title • A description of the topics to be covered and an explanation of why the workshop is of interest to the UAI audience • A short description of the planned activities (talks, posters, panels) • An indicative list of invited speakers and panelists, specifying who is confirmed and who is unconfirmed • A brief description of the history of the workshop, if it previously took place, and of similar past workshops at other major AI/ML conferences in the last 2 years • List of organisers with email addresses and webpage URL (or a short bio for organisers who do not have a webpage) Silvia Chiappa UAI 2021 Workshop Chair uai2021workshopchair(a)gmail.com https://www.auai.org/uai2021/

March 4, 2021

[SIPTA] FW: Special Issue: Reliable Modeling, Simulation, Identification, Control and State Estimation for Dynamic Systems with Uncertainty

by Kreinovich

March 4, 2021

[SIPTA] Uncertainty and Risk meeting

by cohens＠maths.ox.ac.uk

March 3, 2021

[SIPTA] CFP: IFIP WG 7.3 PERFORMANCE 2021

by Cristina Rottondi

March 1, 2021

[SIPTA] Re: important terminological observation: the word "subjective" considered harmful

by Bickis

Maybe “personal” is a better word than “subjective”. All probabilities are conditional, and each individual has different knowledge to condition on. A problem with de Finetti is that the only rational aspect of probability is coherence — otherwise they can be completely arbitrary with no connection with the real world. This is the negative connotation to “subjective”. But this is a reductionist argument. Probability judgments don’t start from nothing. Every individual has a wealth of experience on which to condition his or her probability. Coherence requires using Bayes’ rule to incorporate experience into the “subjective” probability. Real human minds don’t actually do that, but the ideal is that that is how one ought to think. It requires total amnesia for de Finetti’s subjective probabilities to be free of empirical knowledge. Assigning probabilities based on symmetry (coins, cards, dice, etc.) — on other words, probabilities as discussed in elementary (and advanced) courses are not empirical, but can be verified empirically. They are still essentially subjective — based on reasoning, but hopefully a subjectivity on which reasonable people will agree. Mik Bickis > On Feb 19, 2021, at 12:06 PM, Jay Kadane <kadane(a)andrew.cmu.edu> wrote: > > CAUTION: External to USask. Verify sender and use caution with links and attachments. Forward suspicious emails to phishing(a)usask.ca > > > Dear Serena, > I think that our assignment of probabilities to the outcome of > flipping a fair coin stem from the definition of "fair", and hence are > neither subjective or frequentistic. > Jay > > > On 2/19/21 12:35 PM, Serena Doria wrote: >> >> Dear Professor Kadane and dear all, >> >> thank you, all comments were for me very interesting and stimulating! >> >> From a mathematical point of view, it seems to me that the crucial >> point, in the probabilistic field, is not the different role and >> meaning of the words "objective" and "subjective" but between the >> procedures used in the subjectivist approach (based on the notion of >> coherent bet) and in the axiomatic approach (based on Kolmogorov >> axioms). In both cases we assign 1/2 head and 1/2 cross in the toss >> of a fair coin. >> One of the differences could be that in the subjectivist approach such >> assignment can be interpreted as that of a person betting on the given >> event in a coherent bet. >> Another important difference could be that a "coherent" person who >> knows the result \omega of a random experiment assess probability 1 >> to any event containing \omega and 0 to any event which does not >> contain \omega. >> >> >> Best regards, >> Serena >> >> >> Jay Kadane <kadane(a)andrew.cmu.edu> ha scritto: >> >>> Dear Serena, >>> Thank you for this clarification of de Finetti's cultural >>> surroundings. I've heard it said that the data are the data, and >>> everything else we made up. (Sometimes it turns out that what one >>> thought were data , turn out not be the data, but that's another >>> issue). We may have better or worse reasons for the model, prior, >>> etc. used in an analysis, and to be persuasive, it is necessary to >>> explain the thought process behind the choices made. Sometimes the >>> word "objective" is used to try to intimidate people from challenging >>> the choices made. >>> All the best, >>> Jay Kadane >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2/18/21 3:36 AM, Serena Doria wrote: >>>> Dear all >>>> >>>> the term "subjective" for probability was introduced by Bruno de >>>> Finetti, >>>> and to understand the motivation it is necessary to understand the >>>> cultural environment in Italy in that period. In 1934 Luigi >>>> Pirandello received the Nobel Prize in Literature and his vision of >>>> life and knowledge affirmed that there was no 'single truth' but >>>> reality was what the individual subject perceived. And this is also >>>> evident from some of the best-known titles of his plays ( Cosi e' se >>>> vi pare, Uno nessuno centomila). >>>> de Finetti grows in this cultural context but gives to the term >>>> "subjective" a value more rigorous and "objective" through the >>>> concept of coherent betting. >>>> >>>> Personally, I do not believe that the term subjective is to be >>>> understood in a negative way because it highlights how the knowledge >>>> an individual has about a phenomenon depends on the information the >>>> subject has. >>>> >>>> For this reason, in the subjectivist approach to probability, the >>>> concept of conditional probability and conditioning events are >>>> fundamental to represent respectively partial knowledge and >>>> different information that individuals have. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Serena Doria >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "Kreinovich, Vladik" <vladik(a)utep.edu> ha scritto: >>>> >>>>> Dear Friends, >>>>> >>>>> We often talk and write about objective and subjective >>>>> probabilities, about objective and subjective measures of >>>>> uncertainty. However, at a recent conference on uncertainty, Yakov >>>>> Ben-Haim made an important observation -- based on his experience >>>>> of working on applications with colleagues from many different areas. >>>>> >>>>> His experience is that in many application areas, the word >>>>> "subjective" has a negative connotation: it means unjustified >>>>> estimates based on gut feeling only, prone to bias and wild >>>>> variations. >>>>> >>>>> Such gut-feeling-based estimations sometimes happen, but mostly, >>>>> when we talk about "subjective", we mean judgmental estimates, >>>>> estimates which are not just coming out of gut feeling, but which >>>>> can be usually provided with some justification. For example, if we >>>>> estimate to what extent someone is young (one of Zadeh's original >>>>> examples) we can usually explain the degree we assign to >>>>> "youngness" of an individual by referring to features which are >>>>> present and which are typical young age - and features of this >>>>> individual which are more typical for mature-age folks. >>>>> >>>>> For example, subjective probability often means simply probability >>>>> that is not coming from the analysis of frequency, but from expert >>>>> estimates. >>>>> >>>>> Yakov's recommendations is to use words like "judgmental" (or >>>>> "expert-based") instead of "subjective" in such situations, >>>>> especially when working on applications - and applications are the >>>>> main goal of uncertainty studies in the first place. >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> SIPTA mailing list -- sipta(a)lists.idsia.ch >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to sipta-leave(a)lists.idsia.ch >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> SIPTA mailing list -- sipta(a)lists.idsia.ch >>> To unsubscribe send an email to sipta-leave(a)lists.idsia.ch >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > SIPTA mailing list -- sipta(a)lists.idsia.ch > To unsubscribe send an email to sipta-leave(a)lists.idsia.ch

Feb. 20, 2021

[SIPTA] Re: important terminological observation: the word "subjective" considered harmful

by hykel hosni

Feb. 20, 2021

[SIPTA] Re: important terminological observation: the word "subjective" considered harmful

by Erik Quaeghebeur

Dear Jay, Dear Serena, Dear colleagues, > On 2/19/21 12:35 PM, Serena Doria wrote: > >> […] we assign 1/2 head and 1/2 cross in the toss of a fair coin. >> […] in the subjectivist approach such assignment can be interpreted >> as that of a person betting on the given event in a coherent bet. […] On vrijdag 19 februari 2021 19:06:09 CET, Jay Kadane wrote: > > I think that our assignment of probabilities to the outcome of > flipping a fair coin stem from the definition of "fair", and hence are > neither subjective or frequentistic. Fair to whom? The notion of ‘fairness’ of a coin seems to me to have its origins in a betting context. And as Serena mentions, the betting setup is central in the subjectivist approach. The core elicitation question in that approach could be formulated as follows: “Which of these bets are acceptable to you?”. (In this question, I see ‘you’ as the ‘subject’ in ‘subjective’.) I would call a coin fair to the subject if any exchange of a bet and its counterpart with heads and tails switched is acceptable [*]. So I think that the notion of ‘fairness’ itself can be defined as a subjective assessment property. N.B.: To arrive at (subjective) probability ½, on top of fairness, the subject would need to avoid sure loss. (Cf. coherence mentioned by Serena.) Best, Erik [*] Cf. ‘model of symmetry’ in De Cooman & Miranda's “Symmetry of models versus models of symmetry” -- https://ac.erikquaeghebeur.name

Feb. 19, 2021

[SIPTA] Re: important terminological observation: the word "subjective" considered harmful

by Jay Kadane

Dear Serena, I think that our assignment of probabilities to the outcome of flipping a fair coin stem from the definition of "fair", and hence are neither subjective or frequentistic. Jay On 2/19/21 12:35 PM, Serena Doria wrote: > > Dear Professor Kadane and dear all, > > thank you, all comments were for me very interesting and stimulating! > > From a mathematical point of view, it seems to me that the crucial > point, in the probabilistic field, is not the different role and > meaning of the words "objective" and "subjective" but between the > procedures used in the subjectivist approach (based on the notion of > coherent bet) and in the axiomatic approach (based on Kolmogorov > axioms). In both cases we assign 1/2 head and 1/2 cross in the toss > of a fair coin. > One of the differences could be that in the subjectivist approach such > assignment can be interpreted as that of a person betting on the given > event in a coherent bet. > Another important difference could be that a "coherent" person who > knows the result \omega of a random experiment assess probability 1 > to any event containing \omega and 0 to any event which does not > contain \omega. > > > Best regards, > Serena > > > Jay Kadane <kadane(a)andrew.cmu.edu> ha scritto: > >> Dear Serena, >> Thank you for this clarification of de Finetti's cultural >> surroundings. I've heard it said that the data are the data, and >> everything else we made up. (Sometimes it turns out that what one >> thought were data , turn out not be the data, but that's another >> issue). We may have better or worse reasons for the model, prior, >> etc. used in an analysis, and to be persuasive, it is necessary to >> explain the thought process behind the choices made. Sometimes the >> word "objective" is used to try to intimidate people from challenging >> the choices made. >> All the best, >> Jay Kadane >> >> >> >> On 2/18/21 3:36 AM, Serena Doria wrote: >>> Dear all >>> >>> the term "subjective" for probability was introduced by Bruno de >>> Finetti, >>> and to understand the motivation it is necessary to understand the >>> cultural environment in Italy in that period. In 1934 Luigi >>> Pirandello received the Nobel Prize in Literature and his vision of >>> life and knowledge affirmed that there was no 'single truth' but >>> reality was what the individual subject perceived. And this is also >>> evident from some of the best-known titles of his plays ( Cosi e' se >>> vi pare, Uno nessuno centomila). >>> de Finetti grows in this cultural context but gives to the term >>> "subjective" a value more rigorous and "objective" through the >>> concept of coherent betting. >>> >>> Personally, I do not believe that the term subjective is to be >>> understood in a negative way because it highlights how the knowledge >>> an individual has about a phenomenon depends on the information the >>> subject has. >>> >>> For this reason, in the subjectivist approach to probability, the >>> concept of conditional probability and conditioning events are >>> fundamental to represent respectively partial knowledge and >>> different information that individuals have. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Serena Doria >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> "Kreinovich, Vladik" <vladik(a)utep.edu> ha scritto: >>> >>>> Dear Friends, >>>> >>>> We often talk and write about objective and subjective >>>> probabilities, about objective and subjective measures of >>>> uncertainty. However, at a recent conference on uncertainty, Yakov >>>> Ben-Haim made an important observation -- based on his experience >>>> of working on applications with colleagues from many different areas. >>>> >>>> His experience is that in many application areas, the word >>>> "subjective" has a negative connotation: it means unjustified >>>> estimates based on gut feeling only, prone to bias and wild >>>> variations. >>>> >>>> Such gut-feeling-based estimations sometimes happen, but mostly, >>>> when we talk about "subjective", we mean judgmental estimates, >>>> estimates which are not just coming out of gut feeling, but which >>>> can be usually provided with some justification. For example, if we >>>> estimate to what extent someone is young (one of Zadeh's original >>>> examples) we can usually explain the degree we assign to >>>> "youngness" of an individual by referring to features which are >>>> present and which are typical young age - and features of this >>>> individual which are more typical for mature-age folks. >>>> >>>> For example, subjective probability often means simply probability >>>> that is not coming from the analysis of frequency, but from expert >>>> estimates. >>>> >>>> Yakov's recommendations is to use words like "judgmental" (or >>>> "expert-based") instead of "subjective" in such situations, >>>> especially when working on applications - and applications are the >>>> main goal of uncertainty studies in the first place. >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> SIPTA mailing list -- sipta(a)lists.idsia.ch >>> To unsubscribe send an email to sipta-leave(a)lists.idsia.ch >> >> _______________________________________________ >> SIPTA mailing list -- sipta(a)lists.idsia.ch >> To unsubscribe send an email to sipta-leave(a)lists.idsia.ch >> > >

Feb. 19, 2021

[SIPTA] Re: important terminological observation: the word "subjective" considered harmful

by Serena Doria

Dear Professor Kadane and dear all, thank you, all comments were for me very interesting and stimulating! From a mathematical point of view, it seems to me that the crucial point, in the probabilistic field, is not the different role and meaning of the words "objective" and "subjective" but between the procedures used in the subjectivist approach (based on the notion of coherent bet) and in the axiomatic approach (based on Kolmogorov axioms). In both cases we assign 1/2 head and 1/2 cross in the toss of a fair coin. One of the differences could be that in the subjectivist approach such assignment can be interpreted as that of a person betting on the given event in a coherent bet. Another important difference could be that a "coherent" person who knows the result \omega of a random experiment assess probability 1 to any event containing \omega and 0 to any event which does not contain \omega. Best regards, Serena Jay Kadane <kadane(a)andrew.cmu.edu> ha scritto: > Dear Serena, > Thank you for this clarification of de Finetti's cultural > surroundings. I've heard it said that the data are the data, and > everything else we made up. (Sometimes it turns out that what one > thought were data , turn out not be the data, but that's another > issue). We may have better or worse reasons for the model, prior, > etc. used in an analysis, and to be persuasive, it is necessary to > explain the thought process behind the choices made. Sometimes the > word "objective" is used to try to intimidate people from > challenging the choices made. > All the best, > Jay Kadane > > > > On 2/18/21 3:36 AM, Serena Doria wrote: >> Dear all >> >> the term "subjective" for probability was introduced by Bruno de Finetti, >> and to understand the motivation it is necessary to understand the >> cultural environment in Italy in that period. In 1934 Luigi >> Pirandello received the Nobel Prize in Literature and his vision of >> life and knowledge affirmed that there was no 'single truth' but >> reality was what the individual subject perceived. And this is also >> evident from some of the best-known titles of his plays ( Cosi e' >> se vi pare, Uno nessuno centomila). >> de Finetti grows in this cultural context but gives to the term >> "subjective" a value more rigorous and "objective" through the >> concept of coherent betting. >> >> Personally, I do not believe that the term subjective is to be >> understood in a negative way because it highlights how the >> knowledge an individual has about a phenomenon depends on the >> information the subject has. >> >> For this reason, in the subjectivist approach to probability, the >> concept of conditional probability and conditioning events are >> fundamental to represent respectively partial knowledge and >> different information that individuals have. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Serena Doria >> >> >> >> >> >> "Kreinovich, Vladik" <vladik(a)utep.edu> ha scritto: >> >>> Dear Friends, >>> >>> We often talk and write about objective and subjective >>> probabilities, about objective and subjective measures of >>> uncertainty. However, at a recent conference on uncertainty, Yakov >>> Ben-Haim made an important observation -- based on his experience >>> of working on applications with colleagues from many different >>> areas. >>> >>> His experience is that in many application areas, the word >>> "subjective" has a negative connotation: it means unjustified >>> estimates based on gut feeling only, prone to bias and wild >>> variations. >>> >>> Such gut-feeling-based estimations sometimes happen, but mostly, >>> when we talk about "subjective", we mean judgmental estimates, >>> estimates which are not just coming out of gut feeling, but which >>> can be usually provided with some justification. For example, if >>> we estimate to what extent someone is young (one of Zadeh's >>> original examples) we can usually explain the degree we assign to >>> "youngness" of an individual by referring to features which are >>> present and which are typical young age - and features of this >>> individual which are more typical for mature-age folks. >>> >>> For example, subjective probability often means simply probability >>> that is not coming from the analysis of frequency, but from expert >>> estimates. >>> >>> Yakov's recommendations is to use words like "judgmental" (or >>> "expert-based") instead of "subjective" in such situations, >>> especially when working on applications - and applications are the >>> main goal of uncertainty studies in the first place. >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> SIPTA mailing list -- sipta(a)lists.idsia.ch >> To unsubscribe send an email to sipta-leave(a)lists.idsia.ch > > _______________________________________________ > SIPTA mailing list -- sipta(a)lists.idsia.ch > To unsubscribe send an email to sipta-leave(a)lists.idsia.ch >

Feb. 19, 2021

[SIPTA] Re: important terminological observation: the word "subjective" considered harmful

by Charles Manski

Feb. 18, 2021

[SIPTA] Re: important terminological observation: the word "subjective" considered harmful

by David Budescu

Feb. 18, 2021

[SIPTA] Re: important terminological observation: the word "subjective" considered harmful

by antonio calcagnì

Dear all, Thank you for the important remarks you have made. Science is (also, not only) a wonderful dialogical process! I think it is true that often the term "subjective" may have a negative connotation in some research areas, especially when it is contrasted against the term "objective", which can be used to intimidate people (as prof. Kadane wrote). I agree that we need to clarify the choices underlying a given statistical or mathematical modelling as well as all the steps needed to reach a particular result. In general, I also prefer the term "epistemic" when referring to everything coming from the subjective world (e.g., beliefs, judgements, opinions, attitudes) even though, as prof. de Cooman wrote, it does not always overlap with the more specific term "subjective". All the best, Antonio Calcagnì, PhD DPSS, University of Padova Via Venezia 8 - 35131 Padova - ITALY Building 1, Room 03-024, Phone +39.049.827.6524 webpage: https://lilia.dpss.psy.unipd.it/~antonio.calcagni/ On 18/02/21 15:53, Jay Kadane wrote: > Dear Serena, > Thank you for this clarification of de Finetti's cultural > surroundings. I've heard it said that the data are the data, and > everything else we made up. (Sometimes it turns out that what one > thought were data , turn out not be the data, but that's another > issue). We may have better or worse reasons for the model, prior, etc. > used in an analysis, and to be persuasive, it is necessary to explain > the thought process behind the choices made. Sometimes the word > "objective" is used to try to intimidate people from challenging the > choices made. > All the best, > Jay Kadane > > > > On 2/18/21 3:36 AM, Serena Doria wrote: >> Dear all >> >> the term "subjective" for probability was introduced by Bruno de >> Finetti, >> and to understand the motivation it is necessary to understand the >> cultural environment in Italy in that period. In 1934 Luigi >> Pirandello received the Nobel Prize in Literature and his vision of >> life and knowledge affirmed that there was no 'single truth' but >> reality was what the individual subject perceived. And this is also >> evident from some of the best-known titles of his plays ( Cosi e' se >> vi pare, Uno nessuno centomila). >> de Finetti grows in this cultural context but gives to the term >> "subjective" a value more rigorous and "objective" through the >> concept of coherent betting. >> >> Personally, I do not believe that the term subjective is to be >> understood in a negative way because it highlights how the knowledge >> an individual has about a phenomenon depends on the information the >> subject has. >> >> For this reason, in the subjectivist approach to probability, the >> concept of conditional probability and conditioning events are >> fundamental to represent respectively partial knowledge and >> different information that individuals have. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Serena Doria >> >> >> >> >> >> "Kreinovich, Vladik" <vladik(a)utep.edu> ha scritto: >> >>> Dear Friends, >>> >>> We often talk and write about objective and subjective >>> probabilities, about objective and subjective measures of >>> uncertainty. However, at a recent conference on uncertainty, Yakov >>> Ben-Haim made an important observation -- based on his experience of >>> working on applications with colleagues from many different areas. >>> >>> His experience is that in many application areas, the word >>> "subjective" has a negative connotation: it means unjustified >>> estimates based on gut feeling only, prone to bias and wild variations. >>> >>> Such gut-feeling-based estimations sometimes happen, but mostly, >>> when we talk about "subjective", we mean judgmental estimates, >>> estimates which are not just coming out of gut feeling, but which >>> can be usually provided with some justification. For example, if we >>> estimate to what extent someone is young (one of Zadeh's original >>> examples) we can usually explain the degree we assign to "youngness" >>> of an individual by referring to features which are present and >>> which are typical young age - and features of this individual which >>> are more typical for mature-age folks. >>> >>> For example, subjective probability often means simply probability >>> that is not coming from the analysis of frequency, but from expert >>> estimates. >>> >>> Yakov's recommendations is to use words like "judgmental" (or >>> "expert-based") instead of "subjective" in such situations, >>> especially when working on applications - and applications are the >>> main goal of uncertainty studies in the first place. >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> SIPTA mailing list -- sipta(a)lists.idsia.ch >> To unsubscribe send an email to sipta-leave(a)lists.idsia.ch > > _______________________________________________ > SIPTA mailing list -- sipta(a)lists.idsia.ch > To unsubscribe send an email to sipta-leave(a)lists.idsia.ch

Feb. 18, 2021

[SIPTA] Re: important terminological observation: the word "subjective" considered harmful

by Jay Kadane

Dear Serena, Thank you for this clarification of de Finetti's cultural surroundings. I've heard it said that the data are the data, and everything else we made up. (Sometimes it turns out that what one thought were data , turn out not be the data, but that's another issue). We may have better or worse reasons for the model, prior, etc. used in an analysis, and to be persuasive, it is necessary to explain the thought process behind the choices made. Sometimes the word "objective" is used to try to intimidate people from challenging the choices made. All the best, Jay Kadane On 2/18/21 3:36 AM, Serena Doria wrote: > Dear all > > the term "subjective" for probability was introduced by Bruno de Finetti, > and to understand the motivation it is necessary to understand the > cultural environment in Italy in that period. In 1934 Luigi Pirandello > received the Nobel Prize in Literature and his vision of life and > knowledge affirmed that there was no 'single truth' but reality was > what the individual subject perceived. And this is also evident from > some of the best-known titles of his plays ( Cosi e' se vi pare, Uno > nessuno centomila). > de Finetti grows in this cultural context but gives to the term > "subjective" a value more rigorous and "objective" through the > concept of coherent betting. > > Personally, I do not believe that the term subjective is to be > understood in a negative way because it highlights how the knowledge > an individual has about a phenomenon depends on the information the > subject has. > > For this reason, in the subjectivist approach to probability, the > concept of conditional probability and conditioning events are > fundamental to represent respectively partial knowledge and different > information that individuals have. > > Best regards, > > Serena Doria > > > > > > "Kreinovich, Vladik" <vladik(a)utep.edu> ha scritto: > >> Dear Friends, >> >> We often talk and write about objective and subjective probabilities, >> about objective and subjective measures of uncertainty. However, at a >> recent conference on uncertainty, Yakov Ben-Haim made an important >> observation -- based on his experience of working on applications >> with colleagues from many different areas. >> >> His experience is that in many application areas, the word >> "subjective" has a negative connotation: it means unjustified >> estimates based on gut feeling only, prone to bias and wild variations. >> >> Such gut-feeling-based estimations sometimes happen, but mostly, when >> we talk about "subjective", we mean judgmental estimates, estimates >> which are not just coming out of gut feeling, but which can be >> usually provided with some justification. For example, if we estimate >> to what extent someone is young (one of Zadeh's original examples) we >> can usually explain the degree we assign to "youngness" of an >> individual by referring to features which are present and which are >> typical young age - and features of this individual which are more >> typical for mature-age folks. >> >> For example, subjective probability often means simply probability >> that is not coming from the analysis of frequency, but from expert >> estimates. >> >> Yakov's recommendations is to use words like "judgmental" (or >> "expert-based") instead of "subjective" in such situations, >> especially when working on applications - and applications are the >> main goal of uncertainty studies in the first place. >> > > _______________________________________________ > SIPTA mailing list -- sipta(a)lists.idsia.ch > To unsubscribe send an email to sipta-leave(a)lists.idsia.ch

Feb. 18, 2021

[SIPTA] Re: important terminological observation: the word "subjective" considered harmful

by Miralles Dolz

Feb. 18, 2021

[SIPTA] Re: important terminological observation: the word "subjective" considered harmful

by Kornbrot

Feb. 18, 2021

[SIPTA] Re: important terminological observation: the word "subjective" considered harmful

by Gert De Cooman

Feb. 18, 2021

[SIPTA] Re: important terminological observation: the word "subjective" considered harmful

by Serena Doria

Dear all the term "subjective" for probability was introduced by Bruno de Finetti, and to understand the motivation it is necessary to understand the cultural environment in Italy in that period. In 1934 Luigi Pirandello received the Nobel Prize in Literature and his vision of life and knowledge affirmed that there was no 'single truth' but reality was what the individual subject perceived. And this is also evident from some of the best-known titles of his plays ( Cosi e' se vi pare, Uno nessuno centomila). de Finetti grows in this cultural context but gives to the term "subjective" a value more rigorous and "objective" through the concept of coherent betting. Personally, I do not believe that the term subjective is to be understood in a negative way because it highlights how the knowledge an individual has about a phenomenon depends on the information the subject has. For this reason, in the subjectivist approach to probability, the concept of conditional probability and conditioning events are fundamental to represent respectively partial knowledge and different information that individuals have. Best regards, Serena Doria "Kreinovich, Vladik" <vladik(a)utep.edu> ha scritto: > Dear Friends, > > We often talk and write about objective and subjective > probabilities, about objective and subjective measures of > uncertainty. However, at a recent conference on uncertainty, Yakov > Ben-Haim made an important observation -- based on his experience of > working on applications with colleagues from many different areas. > > His experience is that in many application areas, the word > "subjective" has a negative connotation: it means unjustified > estimates based on gut feeling only, prone to bias and wild > variations. > > Such gut-feeling-based estimations sometimes happen, but mostly, > when we talk about "subjective", we mean judgmental estimates, > estimates which are not just coming out of gut feeling, but which > can be usually provided with some justification. For example, if we > estimate to what extent someone is young (one of Zadeh's original > examples) we can usually explain the degree we assign to "youngness" > of an individual by referring to features which are present and > which are typical young age - and features of this individual which > are more typical for mature-age folks. > > For example, subjective probability often means simply probability > that is not coming from the analysis of frequency, but from expert > estimates. > > Yakov's recommendations is to use words like "judgmental" (or > "expert-based") instead of "subjective" in such situations, > especially when working on applications - and applications are the > main goal of uncertainty studies in the first place. >

Feb. 18, 2021

[SIPTA] important terminological observation: the word "subjective" considered harmful

by Kreinovich

Feb. 17, 2021

[SIPTA] BigDat 2021 Autumn: early registration March 3

by IRDTA

Feb. 14, 2021