To Describe or Construct Statistical Learning Models Using the Category-theoretical Language

Generic statements like "tigers are striped" and "cars have radios" communicate information that is, in general, true. However, while the first statement is true in principle, the second is true only statistically. People are exquisitely sensitive to this principled-vs-statistical distinction. It has been argued that this ability to distinguish between something being true by virtue of it being a category member versus being true because of mere statistical regularity, is a general property of people's conceptual machinery and cannot itself be learned. We investigate whether the distinction between principled and statistical properties can be learned from language itself. If so, it raises the possibility that language experience can bootstrap core conceptual distinctions and that it is possible to learn sophisticated causal models directly from language. We find that language models are all sensitive to statistical prevalence, but struggle with representing the principled-vs-statistical distinction controlling for prevalence. Until GPT-4, which succeeds.

Belief functions are a powerful and popular framework for the mathematical characterisation of uncertainty, in particular in situations in which lack of data renders learning a probability distribution for the problem impractical. The first step in a reasoning chain based on belief functions is inference: how to learn a belief measure from the available data. In this survey we focus, in particular, on making inference from statistical data, and review the most significant contributions in the area.

In applied statistics and machine learning, the gold standards used for training are often biased and almost always noisy. Dawid and Skene's justifiably popular crowdsourcing model adjusts for rater sensitivity and specificity, but fails to capture distributional properties of rating data gathered for training, which in turn biases training. In this study, we introduce a general purpose measurement-error model with which we can infer consensus categories by adding item-level effects for difficulty, discriminativeness, and guessability. We further show how to constrain the bimodal posterior of these models to avoid adversarial raters. We validate our model's goodness of fit with posterior predictive checks, the Bayesian analogue of $χ^2$ tests, and assess its predictive accuracy using leave-one-out cross-validation. We illustrate our new model with two well-studied data sets, binary rating data for caries in dental X-rays and implication in natural language.