Systems often need to combine two numerical assessments of the same yes/no question. The appropriate formula depends on what the numbers represent and on how the sources are related. Averaging is correct when one of several alternative interpretations applies; multiplying odds is correct when probability reports are based on conditionally independent evidence and a common prior; and probabilities of alternative successful derivations require their dependence or shared evidence to be taken into account. We state the assumptions behind several common combination rules and derive the corresponding combined probabilities. Two groups of Monte Carlo experiments address different questions. First, controlled generating mechanisms verify that the derived rule recovers the correct probability in the situations for which its assumptions hold. Second, the same mechanisms measure the consequences of using a mismatched rule, using logarithmic score and threshold decisions with different costs. Distinct pooling rules can produce the same binary decision at threshold 1/2 while assigning substantially different probabilities, so binary accuracy alone can conceal important differences. We also give probabilistic interpretations of conflicting-evidence rules and show that, for overlapping derivations, retaining the identities of shared uncertain premises permits direct calculation of the probability that at least one derivation is available. Pairwise combination of proof probabilities loses information when there are three or more derivations.
Although probabilistic statements are ubiquitous, foundational disagreements persist about their understanding, as exemplified by debates between Bayesians and frequentists; moreover, it is unclear when and why acting on them actually leads to desirable outcomes. Here, we argue that every probability is the output of a \emph{prediction method}, that is, it depends on both a particular way of constructing abstractions and a way of transforming them into predictions. Through this, we provide a unifying perspective on supposedly different kinds of probabilities and show that even supposedly objective ones are model-dependent. We demonstrate that when a finite calibration criterion is met, one can anticipate the distribution of utilities for a given policy and inform successful decision-making on finite sets of events. Based on the notion of prediction methods, inductive arguments, and the probability calculus, we explain the feasibility of the calibration criterion in many settings. Overall, we develop a coherent perspective on probabilities and their use, connecting key intuitions behind other interpretations along the way.
Probabilities of causation (PoCs) characterize individual causal responses that cannot be directly observed and therefore generally require partial identification. Tian and Pearl first derived theoretically sharp bounds for binary PoCs, including the probability of necessity (PN), the probability of sufficiency (PS), and the probability of necessity and sufficiency (PNS). Mueller et al. subsequently tightened the bounds for binary PNS by incorporating causal information encoded in covariates and mediators. More recently, Li and Pearl, as well as Shu et al., extended PoCs to multivalued settings and derived corresponding theoretical bounds. These developments naturally raise the question of whether additional causal knowledge can further tighten the bounds in multivalued settings. This paper addresses this question by deriving tighter bounds for multivalued PoCs through the incorporation of causal information encoded in covariates and mediators. We illustrate the theoretical results with toy examples, while simulation studies further demonstrate that the proposed bounds are tighter than existing nonbinary bounds.
Multi-model LLM systems such as routing, voting, cascades, fusion, and mixture-of-agents are used to beat single-model accuracy. We show that their gain is capped by a quantity the field rarely reports. For any policy whose output is one member model answer, accuracy cannot exceed one minus beta, where beta is the rate at which every model is wrong on the same query. In contrast, the usual diagnostic, average pairwise error correlation rho, cannot identify beta: error laws with identical marginals and pairwise correlations can have different all-wrong rates. A Clopper-Pearson bound on beta gives a finite-sample certificate on the largest gain any router, vote, or cascade could deliver before training a router. Across 67 models from 21 providers, a tetrachoric-calibrated single-factor model still underprices the all-wrong tail: on open-ended mathematics, observed beta is 0.052 versus 0.023 under the full 67-model Gaussian copula, about 2.5 times underpricing, with 90 percent CI 1.7 to 3.4 and k equals 17. The effect recurs on execution-graded code, where beta is 0.079. Re-asking the same GPQA-Diamond questions in free-response rather than multiple-choice form reopens the tail, with beta 0.127 and a five-judge panel with kappa 0.73 to 0.92, locating co-failure in answer format rather than subject. At matched quality, low-rho heterogeneous ensembles beat high-rho Self-MoA, but on checkable tasks in our pool, combining models rarely beats the single best model without a strong query-level routing signal. Gains come from models failing on different questions, not from adding more models.