Shrinking the Variance in Experts' "Classical" Weights Used in Expert Judgment Aggregation

被引:0
|
作者
Dharmarathne, Gayan [1 ]
Nane, Gabriela F. [2 ]
Robinson, Andrew [3 ]
Hanea, Anca M. [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Colombo, Dept Stat, Colombo 00300, Sri Lanka
[2] Delft Univ Technol, Delft Inst Appl Math, NL-2628 CD Delft, Netherlands
[3] Univ Melbourne, Ctr Excellence Biosecur Risk Anal, Sch Biosci, Melbourne, Vic 3010, Australia
来源
FORECASTING | 2023年 / 5卷 / 03期
关键词
shrinkage estimation; James-Stein; performance weights; classical model; structured expert judgment; PERFORMANCE;
D O I
10.3390/forecast5030029
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Mathematical aggregation of probabilistic expert judgments often involves weighted linear combinations of experts' elicited probability distributions of uncertain quantities. Experts' weights are commonly derived from calibration experiments based on the experts' performance scores, where performance is evaluated in terms of the calibration and the informativeness of the elicited distributions. This is referred to as Cooke's method, or the classical model (CM), for aggregating probabilistic expert judgments. The performance scores are derived from experiments, so they are uncertain and, therefore, can be represented by random variables. As a consequence, the experts' weights are also random variables. We focus on addressing the underlying uncertainty when calculating experts' weights to be used in a mathematical aggregation of expert elicited distributions. This paper investigates the potential of applying an empirical Bayes development of the James-Stein shrinkage estimation technique on the CM's weights to derive shrinkage weights with reduced mean squared errors. We analyze 51 professional CM expert elicitation studies. We investigate the differences between the classical and the (new) shrinkage CM weights and the benefits of using the new weights. In theory, the outcome of a probabilistic model using the shrinkage weights should be better than that obtained when using the classical weights because shrinkage estimation techniques reduce the mean squared errors of estimators in general. In particular, the empirical Bayes shrinkage method used here reduces the assigned weights for those experts with larger variances in the corresponding sampling distributions of weights in the experiment. We measure improvement of the aggregated judgments in a cross-validation setting using two studies that can afford such an approach. Contrary to expectations, the results are inconclusive. However, in practice, we can use the proposed shrinkage weights to increase the reliability of derived weights when only small-sized experiments are available. We demonstrate the latter on 49 post-2006 professional CM expert elicitation studies.
引用
收藏
页码:522 / 535
页数:14
相关论文
共 32 条
  • [1] Validating Expert Judgment with the Classical Model
    Cooke, Roger M.
    EXPERTS AND CONSENSUS IN SOCIAL SCIENCE, 2014, 50 : 191 - 212
  • [2] Biased experts and similarity based weights in preferences aggregation
    Beliakov, Gleb
    James, Simon
    Smith, Laura
    Wilkin, Tim
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2015 CONFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL FUZZY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATION AND THE EUROPEAN SOCIETY FOR FUZZY LOGIC AND TECHNOLOGY, 2015, 89 : 363 - 370
  • [3] SELECTION OF LEAK DETECTION SYSTEMS BY AGGREGATION OF EXPERTS' JUDGMENT
    Yasseri, Sirous
    33RD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON OCEAN, OFFSHORE AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING, 2014, VOL 6A: PIPELINE AND RISER TECHNOLOGY, 2014,
  • [4] EXPLORING MEDICAL EXPERTS' NUMERICAL JUDGMENT PROCESSES IN THE CONTEXT OF STRUCTURED EXPERT JUDGMENT PROTOCOL
    Marti, Deniz
    Hamdy, Rana
    Broniatowski, David
    MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2021, 41 (04) : E345 - E346
  • [5] Cross validation for the classical model of structured expert judgment
    Colson, Abigail R.
    Cooke, Roger M.
    RELIABILITY ENGINEERING & SYSTEM SAFETY, 2017, 163 : 109 - 120
  • [6] Comparison of a new expert elicitation model with the Classical Model, equal weights and single experts, using a cross-validation technique
    Flandoli, F.
    Giorgi, E.
    Aspinall, W. P.
    Neri, A.
    RELIABILITY ENGINEERING & SYSTEM SAFETY, 2011, 96 (10) : 1292 - 1310
  • [7] Expert Elicitation: Using the Classical Model to Validate Experts' Judgments
    Colson, Abigail R.
    Cooke, Roger M.
    REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND POLICY, 2018, 12 (01) : 113 - 132
  • [8] SOLICITING WEIGHTS OR PROBABILITIES FROM EXPERTS FOR RULE-BASED EXPERT SYSTEMS
    OLEARY, DE
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MAN-MACHINE STUDIES, 1990, 32 (03): : 293 - 301
  • [9] EXPERT JUDGMENT USED FOR ABSTRACTING (WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO HEATING FURNACES)
    VESELAYA, GN
    PRYANIKOVA, VK
    NAUCHNO-TEKHNICHESKAYA INFORMATSIYA SERIYA 1-ORGANIZATSIYA I METODIKA INFORMATSIONNOI RABOTY, 1977, (06): : 13 - 14
  • [10] When Experts Disagree: Response Aggregation and its Consequences in Expert Surveys
    Lindstadt, Rene
    Proksch, Sven-Oliver
    Slapin, Jonathan B.
    POLITICAL SCIENCE RESEARCH AND METHODS, 2020, 8 (03) : 580 - 588