Reconciling Individual Probability Forecasts
Aaron Roth, Alexander Tolbert, Scott Weinstein

TL;DR
This paper demonstrates that two parties with shared data cannot substantially disagree on individual probability forecasts because disagreements can be empirically tested and improved through an iterative reconciliation process, leading to near agreement.
Contribution
The paper introduces a method for reconciling individual probability models through empirical falsification and iterative improvement, resolving the model multiplicity problem.
Findings
Disagreements in individual probabilities can be empirically tested.
Iterative reconciliation leads to models that almost agree everywhere.
The process ensures models are both improved and mutually acceptable.
Abstract
Individual probabilities refer to the probabilities of outcomes that are realized only once: the probability that it will rain tomorrow, the probability that Alice will die within the next 12 months, the probability that Bob will be arrested for a violent crime in the next 18 months, etc. Individual probabilities are fundamentally unknowable. Nevertheless, we show that two parties who agree on the data -- or on how to sample from a data distribution -- cannot agree to disagree on how to model individual probabilities. This is because any two models of individual probabilities that substantially disagree can together be used to empirically falsify and improve at least one of the two models. This can be efficiently iterated in a process of "reconciliation" that results in models that both parties agree are superior to the models they started with, and which themselves (almost) agree on…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
