IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/spr/isochp/978-3-030-46474-5_5.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Bayesian Modelling of Dependence Between Experts: Some Comparisons with Cooke’s Classical Model

In: Expert Judgement in Risk and Decision Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • David Hartley

    (University of Warwick)

  • Simon French

    (University of Warwick)

Abstract

A Bayesian model for analysing and aggregating structured expert judgement (sej) data of the form used by Cooke’s classical model has been developed. The model has been built to create predictions over a common dataset, thereby allowing direct comparison between approaches. It deals with correlations between experts through clustering and also seeks to recalibrate judgements using the seed variables, in order to form an unbiased aggregated distribution over the target variables. Using the Delft database of sej studies, compiled by Roger Cooke, performance comparisons with the classical model demonstrate that this Bayesian approach provides similar median estimates but broader uncertainty bounds on the variables of interest. Cross-validation shows that these dynamics lead to the Bayesian model exhibiting higher statistical accuracy but lower information scores than the classical model. Comparisons of the combination scoring rule add further evidence to the robustness of the classical approach yet demonstrate outperformance of the Bayesian model in select cases.

Suggested Citation

  • David Hartley & Simon French, 2021. "Bayesian Modelling of Dependence Between Experts: Some Comparisons with Cooke’s Classical Model," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Anca M. Hanea & Gabriela F. Nane & Tim Bedford & Simon French (ed.), Expert Judgement in Risk and Decision Analysis, chapter 0, pages 115-146, Springer.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:isochp:978-3-030-46474-5_5
    DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-46474-5_5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:isochp:978-3-030-46474-5_5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.