Combining the Opinions of Experts Who Partition Events Differently
نویسنده
چکیده
This paper focuses on updating a client’s beliefs about an event based on information about the different probabilities which various experts assess for that event. A substantial literature solves this problem when all experts assess their probabilities over the same partitioning of the possible outcomes of an event. But different experts often think about the same problem in quite different ways. This can lead to differences in how experts prefer to partition the possible outcomes of an event. Forcing the experts to use a common partition could lead to less informative probability assessments. As a result, this paper presents a new approach for combining probability assessments from different experts which allows experts to assess their probability assessments across different partitionings.
منابع مشابه
Methods for combining experts' probability assessments
This article reviews statistical techniques for combining multiple probability distributions. The framework is that of a decision maker who consults several experts regarding some events. The experts express their opinions in the form of probability distributions. The decision maker must aggregate the experts' distributions into a single distribution that can be used for decision making. Two cl...
متن کاملRule-Based Modeling of Chronic Disease Epidemiology: Elderly Depression as an Illustration
BACKGROUND Rule-based Modeling (RBM) is a computer simulation modeling methodology already used to model infectious diseases. Extending this technique to the assessment of chronic diseases, mixing quantitative and qualitative data appear to be a promising alternative to classical methods. Elderly depression reveals an important source of comorbidities. Yet, the intertwined relationship between ...
متن کاملSimulation of the Delphi Method with a Fuzzy Expert System
The introduction of fuzzy logic into expert systems is an approach that allows expert systems to deal with real-world aspects that cannot be modeled accurately with classical crisp logic. An example is the formation of human opinions that are not always crisp with respect to the membership of a certain element in a set. In addition, the Delphi method is a technique for forming a stable consensu...
متن کاملCombining Experts’ Causal Judgments
Consider a policymaker who wants to decide which intervention to perform in order to change a currently undesirable situation. The policymaker has at her disposal a team of experts, each with their own understanding of the causal dependencies between different factors contributing to the outcome. The policymaker has varying degrees of confidence in the experts’ opinions. She wants to combine th...
متن کاملCombining Bodies of Dependent Information
Recently, Hummel and Landy proposed a variation on the Dempster/Shafer theory of evidence that tracks only the first and second order statistics of the opinions of sets of experts. This extension permits the tracking of statistics of probabilistic opinions, however, as opposed to tracking merely Boolean opinions (or possibilities within the "frame of discernment"). Both the Dempster/Shafer form...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
- Decision Analysis
دوره 6 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2009