Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/2122/7488
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 | URL: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832011001104 | Keywords: | Expert elicitation Expert judgement Subjective probability Cross-validation Cooke Classical Model Expected Relative Frequency model |
Subject Classification: | 04. 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 | Size | Format | Existing users please Login |
---|---|---|---|---|
RESS_Flandoli_etal_2011.pdf | 1.56 MB | Adobe PDF |
WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations
20
24
checked on Feb 10, 2021
Page view(s) 50
177
checked on Apr 24, 2024
Download(s)
30
checked on Apr 24, 2024