Package 'Pinference'

Description

inferP() calculates the minimum and maximum allowed values of the probability for a propositional-logic expression conditional on another one, given numerical or equality constraints for the conditional probabilities for other propositional-logic expressions.

Usage

inferP(target, ..., solidus = TRUE)

Arguments

Details

The function takes as first argument the probability for a logical expression, conditional on another expression, and as subsequent (optional) arguments the constraints on the probabilities for other logical expressions. Propositional logic is intended here.

The function uses the lpSolve::lp() function from the lpSolve package.

Logical expressions

A propositional-logic expression is a combination of atomic propositions by means of logical connectives. Atomic propositions can have any name that satisfies R syntax for object names. Examples:

a
A
hypothesis1
coin.lands.tails
coin_lands_heads
`tomorrow it rains` # note the backticks

Available logical connectives are "not" (negation, "$\lnot$"), "and" (conjunction, "$\land$"), "or" (disjunction, "$\lor$"), "if-then" (implication, "$\Rightarrow$") which internally is simply defined as "x or not-y". Two kinds of notation are available:

Arithmetic notation: should be used with argument solidus = TRUE:

• Not: ⁠ -⁠

• And: *

• Or: +

• If-then: >

Logical notation (see base::logical): should be used with the argument solidus = FALSE:

• Not: !

• And: & or &&

• Or: | or ||

• If-then: two-argument function ifthen()

The two kinds of notation can actually be mixed (only | and || are not allowed if solidus = TRUE), but beware of very unusual connective precedence in that case; for example, !a + b is interpreted as !(a + b). If you use mixed notation you should explicitly group with parentheses to ensure the desired connective precedence. A warning is issued when ! is used for negation together with +, *, because the grouping is dangerously counter-intuitive in this case.

Examples of logical expressions:

a
a & b
(a + hypothesis1) & -A
red.ball & ((a > -b) + c)

Probabilities of logical expressions

The probability of an expression $X$ conditional on an expression $Y$in entered with syntax similar to the common mathematical notation $\mathrm{P}(X \vert Y)$. The solidus "|" is used to separate the conditional (note that in usual R syntax such symbol stands for logical "or" instead). If the argument solidus = FALSE is given in the function, then the tilde "~" is used instead of the solidus (note that in usual R syntax such symbol introduces a formula instead). For instance

$\mathrm{P}(\lnot a \lor b \:\vert\: c \land H)$

can be entered in the following ways, among others (extra spaces added just for clarity):

P(-a + b  |  c * H)

or, if argument solidus = FALSE:

P(!a | b  ~  c & H)
P(!a || b  ~  c && H)

It is also possible to use Pr, p, pr, F, f, T (for "truth"), or t instead of P.

Probability constraints

Each probability constraint can have one of these four forms:

P(X | Z) = [number between 0 and 1]

P(X | Z) = P(Y | Z)

P(X | Z) = P(Y | Z) * [positive number]

P(X | Z) = P(Y | Z) / [positive number]

where X, Y, Z are logical expressions. Note that the conditionals on the left and right sides must be the same. Inequalities <= >= are also allowed instead of equalities.

See the accompanying vignette for more interesting examples.

Value

A vector of min and max values for the target probability, or NA if the constraints are mutually contradictory. If min and max are 0 and 1 then the constraints do not restrict the target probability in any way.

References

T. Hailperin: Best Possible Inequalities for the Probability of a Logical Function of Events. Am. Math. Monthly 72(4):343, 1965 https://doi.org/10.1080/00029890.1965.11970533.

T. Hailperin: Sentential Probability Logic: Origins, Development, Current Status, and Technical Applications. Associated University Presses, 1996 https://archive.org/details/hailperin1996-Sentential_probability_logic/.

Examples

## No constraints
inferP(
  target = P(a | h)
)

## Trivial example with inequality constraint
inferP(
  target = P(a | h),
  P(-a | h) >= 0.2
)

#' ## The probability of an "and" is always less
## than the probabilities of the and-ed propositions:
inferP(
  target = P(a & b | h),
  P(a | h) == 0.3,
  P(b | h) == 0.6
)

## P(a & b | h) is completely determined
## by P(a | h) and P(b | a & h):
inferP(
    target = P(a & b | h),
    P(a | h) == 0.3,
    P(b | a & h) == 0.2
)

## Logical implication (modus ponens)
inferP(
  target = P(b | I),
  P(a | I) == 1,
  P(a > b | I) == 1
)

## Cut rule of sequent calculus
inferP(
  target = P(X + Y | I & J),
  P(A & X | I) == 1,
  P(Y | A & J) == 1
)

## Solution to the Monty Hall problem (see accompanying vignette):
inferP(
    target = P(car2  |  you1 & host3 & I),
    ##
    P(car1 & car2  |  I) == 0,
    P(car1 & car3  |  I) == 0,
    P(car2 & car3  |  I) == 0,
    P(car1 + car2 + car3  |  I) == 1,
    P(host1 & host2 | I) == 0,
    P(host1 & host3 | I) == 0,
    P(host2 & host3 | I) == 0,
    P(host1 + host2 + host3  |  I) == 1,
    P(host1  |  you1 & I) == 0,
    P(host2  |  car2 & I) == 0,
    P(host3  |  car3 & I) == 0,
    P(car1  |  I) == P(car2  |  I),
    P(car2  |  I) == P(car3  |  I),
    P(car1  |  you1 & I) == P(car2  |  you1 & I),
    P(car2  |  you1 & I) == P(car3  |  you1 & I),
    P(host2  |  you1 & car1 & I) == P(host3  |  you1 & car1 & I)
)