Shrinking the Variance in Experts’ “Classical” Weights Used in Expert Judgment Aggregation

Author:

Dharmarathne Gayan1,Nane Gabriela F.2,Robinson Andrew3ORCID,Hanea Anca M.3

Affiliation:

1. Department of Statistics, University of Colombo, Colombo 00300, Sri Lanka

2. Delft Institute of Applied Mathematics, Delft University of Technology, 2628 CD Delft, The Netherlands

3. Centre of Excellence for Biosecurity Risk Analysis, School of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia

Abstract

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.

Publisher

MDPI AG

Subject

Decision Sciences (miscellaneous),Computational Theory and Mathematics,Computer Science Applications,Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous)

Reference23 articles.

1. Expert Knowledge Elicitation: Subjective but Scientific;Am. Stat.,2019

2. Cooke, R. (1991). Experts in Uncertainty: Opinion and Subjective Probability in Science, Oxford University Press on Demand.

3. Stein, C. (1954, January 26–31). Inadmissibility of the usual estimator for the mean of a multivariate normal distribution. Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Berkeley, CA, USA.

4. James, W., and Stein, C. (1960, January 20–30). Estimation with quadratic loss. Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Berkeley, CA, USA.

5. Double shrinkage empirical Bayesian estimation for unknown and unequal variances;Zhao;Stat. Its Interface,2010

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3