Learning from What's Right and Learning from What's Wrong
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The concept of updating (or conditioning or revising) a probability distribution is fundamental in (machine) learning and in predictive coding theory. The two main approaches for doing so are called Pearl's rule and Jeffrey's rule. Here we make, for the first time, mathematically precise what distinguishes them: Pearl's rule increases validity (expected value) and Jeffrey's rule decreases (Kullback-Leibler) divergence. This forms an instance of a more general distinction between learning from what's right and learning from what's wrong. The difference between these two approaches is illustrated in a mock cognitive scenario.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 28 Dec 2021.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 2; 2024: 1; 2025: 2.
5 papers.
- 2023Causal models in string diagramscited by 14
- 2024Towards Compositional Interpretability for XAIcited by 10
- 2025Jeffrey's update rule as a minimizer of Kullback-Leibler divergencecited by 1
- 2023Pearl's and Jeffrey's Update as Modes of Learning in Probabilistic Programmingcited by 0
- 2025On Lockean beliefs that are deductively closed and minimal changecited by 0
- 2025On Lockean beliefs that are deductively closed and minimal change8 Jul 2025
- 2025Jeffrey's update rule as a minimizer of Kullback-Leibler divergence21 Feb 2025
- 2024Towards Compositional Interpretability for XAI25 Jun 2024
- 2023Pearl's and Jeffrey's Update as Modes of Learning in Probabilistic Programming13 Sep 2023
- 2023Causal models in string diagrams15 Apr 2023