Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Authors: Flandoli, F.* 
Giorgi, E.* 
Aspinall, W. P.* 
Neri, A.* 
Title: Comparison of a new expert elicitation model with the Classical Model, equal weights and single experts, using a cross-validation technique
Journal: Reliability Engineering and System Safety 
Series/Report no.: 10/96(2011)
Publisher: Elsevier
Issue Date: Oct-2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2011.05.012
Keywords: Expert elicitation
Expert judgement
Subjective probability
Cooke Classical Model
Expected Relative Frequency model
Subject Classification04. Solid Earth::04.04. Geology::04.04.99. General or miscellaneous 
04. Solid Earth::04.04. Geology::04.04.08. Sediments: dating, processes, transport 
05. General::05.01. Computational geophysics::05.01.04. Statistical analysis 
Abstract: The problem of ranking and weighting experts' performances when quantitative judgments are being elicited for decision support is considered. A new scoring model, the Expected Relative Frequency model, is presented, based on the closeness between central values provided by the expert and known values used for calibration. Using responses from experts in five different elicitation datasets, a cross-validation technique is used to compare this new approach with the Cooke Classical Model, the Equal Weights model, and individual experts. The analysis is performed using alternative reward schemes designed to capture proficiency either in quantifying uncertainty, or in estimating true central values. Results show that although there is only a limited probability that one approach is consistently better than another, the Cooke Classical Model is generally the most suitable for assessing uncertainties, whereas the new ERF model should be preferred if the goal is central value estimation accuracy.
Appears in Collections:Article published / in press

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat Existing users please Login
RESS_Flandoli_etal_2011.pdf1.56 MBAdobe PDF
Show full item record

Citations 20

checked on Feb 10, 2021

Page view(s) 50

checked on Feb 21, 2024


checked on Feb 21, 2024

Google ScholarTM