Possibility Theory

Decision-making under uncertainty remains a key issue in Machine Learning (ML), particularly in the deployment of safety-critical systems, where reliable quantification of system behavior is essential for evaluating behavioral impacts and strengthening confidence in ML models. This contribution, influenced by fuzzy set theory and grounded in Bayesian statistics, addresses challenges related to data precision and the performance-accuracy trade-off in Bayesian inference (BI). To this end, we introduce a possibility-based contrastive grade of prediction as an alternative quantification method to existing latent posterior-based approaches for parameter estimation (approximation) and model selection. Unlike conventional Bayesian inference, which represents uncertainty within the probabilistic framework, the proposed model adopts a possibility-based representation that allows uncertain and potentially conflicting information to be characterized more flexibly. Rather than focusing on isolated aspects of a problem, the resulting mathematical framework provides a systematic approach to data mining while mitigating overly confident, yet implausible predictions generated by highly specialized deep learning architectures.

Autonomous scientific discovery with LLMs requires generating and testing hypotheses adaptively as evidence accumulates while maintaining statistical validity. Existing anytime-valid methods can handle data-dependent hypotheses, but open-ended discovery poses a deeper challenge: the best discovered hypothesis may still be the best of a bad lot, with better explanations yet undiscovered, while even background knowledge such as physical laws may require revision in light of new findings. In response, we formalize the problem as Abductive Autonomous Scientific Discovery (AASD) using possibility theory. We introduce abductive utility, a computable measure of discovery progress, and possibility frontier search, the first algorithm for AASD, which maintains anytime validity and achieves $\varepsilon$-optimal abductive utility asymptotically under suitable conditions. Experiments on synthetic and real-world scientific-discovery tasks show strong performance.

Dempster's rule is a fundamental tool for combining belief functions from distinct and reliable sources. However, its intersection-based semantics imposes strong structural restrictions, which limits its flexibility in handling complex source states and diverse information fusion scenarios. To overcome this limitation, we propose a reversible transformation, derived from the isopignistic principle, between belief functions and a possibilistic structure defined on the power set. In this transformation, the relationships among subsets are explicitly characterized by a belief evolution network, which provides a more flexible representation of evidential information beyond the conventional mass function structure. On this basis, we further introduce the triangular norm family to develop a general and adaptive evidential information fusion framework. Unlike fusion methods rooted in Dempster semantics, the proposed framework supports more flexible combination behaviors and exhibits advantages in non-distinct source fusion, conflict management, parametric combination design, and heterogeneous information fusion.

Deep neural networks achieve impressive results across diverse applications, yet their overconfidence on unseen inputs necessitates reliable epistemic uncertainty modeling. Existing methods for uncertainty modeling face a fundamental dilemma: Bayesian approaches provide principled estimates but remain computationally prohibitive, while efficient second-order predictors lack rigorous connections between their specific objectives and epistemic uncertainty quantification. To resolve this dilemma, we introduce Dirichlet-approximated possibilistic posterior predictions (DAPPr), a principled framework grounded in possibility theory. We define a possibilistic posterior over parameters, project it to the prediction space via supremum operators, and approximate the projected posterior using learnable Dirichlet possibility functions. This projection-and-approximation strategy yields a simple training objective with closed-form solutions. Despite its simplicity, extensive experiments across diverse benchmarks show that DAPPr achieves competitive or superior uncertainty quantification performance over state-of-the-art second-order predictors while maintaining both principled derivation and computational efficiency. Code is available at https://github.com/MaxwellYaoNi/DAPPr.

This paper develops a measure-theoretic framework establishing when and how a possibilistic representation of incomplete knowledge contracts into a probabilistic representation of intrinsic stochastic variability. Epistemic uncertainty is encoded by a possibility distribution and its dual necessity measure, defining a credal set bounding all probability measures consistent with current evidence. As evidence accumulates, the credal set contracts. The epistemic collapse condition marks the transition: the Choquet integral converges to the Lebesgue integral over the unique limiting density. We prove this rigorously (Theorem 4.5), with all assumptions explicit and a full treatment of the non-consonant case. We introduce the aggregate epistemic width W, establish its axiomatic properties, provide a canonical normalization, and give a feasible online proxy resolving a circularity in prior formulations. Section 7 develops the dynamics of epistemic contraction: evidence induces compatibility, compatibility performs falsification, posterior possibility is the min-intersection of prior possibility and compatibility, and a credibility-directed flow governs support geometry contraction. This is not belief updating. It is knowledge contraction. Probability theory is the limiting geometry of that process. The UKF and ESPF solve different problems by different mechanisms. The UKF minimizes MSE, asserts truth, and requires a valid generative model. The ESPF minimizes maximum entropy and surfaces what evidence has not ruled out. When the world is Gaussian and the model valid, both reach the same estimate by entirely different routes -- convergent optimality, not hierarchical containment. We prove this (Theorem 9.1) and compare both on a 2-day, 877-step orbital tracking scenario. Both achieve 1-meter accuracy. The UKF is accurate but epistemically silent. The ESPF is accurate and epistemically honest.

This paper proves that the Epistemic Support-Point Filter (ESPF) is the unique optimal recursive estimator within the class of epistemically admissible evidence-only filters. Where Bayesian filters minimize mean squared error and are driven toward an assumed truth, the ESPF minimizes maximum entropy and surfaces what has not been proven impossible -- a fundamentally different epistemic commitment with fundamentally different failure modes. Two results locate this theorem within the broader landscape of estimation theory. The first is a unification: the ESPF's optimality criterion is the log-geometric mean of the alpha-cut volume family in the Holder mean hierarchy. The Popperian minimax bound and the Kalman MMSE criterion occupy the p=+inf and p=0 positions on the same curve. Possibility and probability are not competing frameworks: they are the same ignorance functional evaluated under different alpha-cut geometries. The Kalman filter is the Gaussian specialization of the ESPF's optimality criterion, not a separate invention. The second result is a diagnostic: numerical validation over a 2-day, 877-step Smolyak Level-3 orbital tracking run shows that possibilistic stress manifests through necessity saturation and surprisal escalation rather than MVEE sign change -- a direct consequence of the Holder ordering, not an empirical observation. Three lemmas establish the result: the Possibilistic Entropy Lemma decomposes the ignorance functional; the Possibilistic Cramer-Rao Bound limits entropy reduction per measurement; the Evidence-Optimality Lemma proves minimum-q selection is the unique minimizer and that any rule incorporating prior possibility risks race-to-bottom bias.

Factorizing datasets is an interesting process in a multitude of approaches, but many times it is not possible or efficient the computation of a factorization of the dataset. A method to obtain independent subcontexts of a formal context with Boolean data was proposed in~\cite{dubois:2012}, based on the operators used in possibility theory. In this paper, we will analyze this method and study different properties related to the pairs of sets from which a factorization of a formal context arises. We also inspect how the properties given in the classical case can be extended to the fuzzy framework, which is essential to obtain a mechanism that allows the computation of independent subcontexts of a fuzzy context.

The paper considers a new quantitative-qualitative proximity measure for the features of information objects, where data enters a common information resource from several sources independently. The goal is to determine the possibility of their relation to the same physical object (observation object). The proposed measure accounts for the possibility of differences in individual feature values - both quantitative and qualitative - caused by existing determination errors. To analyze the proximity of quantitative feature values, the author employs a probabilistic measure; for qualitative features, a measure of possibility is used. The paper demonstrates the feasibility of the proposed measure by checking its compliance with the axioms required of any measure. Unlike many known measures, the proposed approach does not require feature value transformation to ensure comparability. The work also proposes several variants of measures to determine the proximity of information objects (IO) based on a group of diverse features.

This paper offers a new concept of {\it possibility} as an alternative to the now-a-days standard concept originally introduced by L.A. Zadeh in 1978. This new version was inspired by the original but, formally, has nothing in common with it other than that they both adopt the Łukasiewicz multivalent interpretation of the logical connectives. Moreover, rather than seeking to provide a general notion of possibility, this focuses specifically on the possibility of a real-world event. An event is viewed as having prerequisites that enable its occurrence and constraints that may impede its occurrence, and the possibility of the event is computed as a function of the probabilities that the prerequisites hold and the constraints do not. This version of possibility might appropriately be applied to problems of planning. When there are multiple plans available for achieving a goal, this theory can be used to determine which plan is most possible, i.e., easiest or most feasible to complete. It is speculated that this model of reasoning correctly captures normal human reasoning about plans. The theory is elaborated and an illustrative example for vehicle route planning is provided. There is also a suggestion of potential future applications.