Combining probability distributions from experts in risk analysis

被引:446
作者
Clemen, RT [1 ]
Winkler, RL [1 ]
机构
[1] Duke Univ, Fuqua Sch Business, Durham, NC 27708 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
combining probabilities; expert judgment; probability assessment;
D O I
10.1023/A:1006917509560
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
This paper concerns the combination of experts' probability distributions in risk analysis, discussing a variety of combination methods and attempting to highlight the important conceptual and practical issues to be considered in designing a combination process in practice. The role of experts is important because their judgments can provide valuable information, particularly in view of the limited availability of "hard data" regarding many important uncertainties in risk analysis. Because uncertainties are represented in terms of probability distributions in probabilistic risk analysis (PRA), we consider expert information in terms of probability distributions. The motivation for the use of multiple experts is simply the desire to obtain as much information as possible. Combining experts' probability distributions summarizes the accumulated information for risk analysts and decision-makers. Procedures for combining probability distributions are often compartmentalized as mathematical aggregation methods or behavioral approaches, and we discuss both categories. However, an overall aggregation process could involve both mathematical and behavioral aspects, and no single process is best in all circumstances. An understanding of the pros and cons of different methods and the key issues to consider is valuable in the design of a combination process for a specific PRA. The output, a "combined probability distribution," can ideally be viewed as representing a summary of the current state of expert opinion regarding the uncertainty of interest.
引用
收藏
页码:187 / 203
页数:17
相关论文
共 116 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], ENV SCI TECH
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1986, STAT SCI
[3]   INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP USE OF BASE-RATE AND INDIVIDUATING INFORMATION [J].
ARGOTE, L ;
SEABRIGHT, MA ;
DYER, L .
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES, 1986, 38 (01) :65-75
[4]   USE OF DECOMPOSITION PRINCIPLE IN MAKING JUDGMENTS [J].
ARMSTRONG, JS ;
DENNISTON, WB ;
GORDON, MM .
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN PERFORMANCE, 1975, 14 (02) :257-263
[5]  
Arrow K. J, 1970, Social choice and individual values, V2nd
[6]   AGREEING TO DISAGREE [J].
AUMANN, RJ .
ANNALS OF STATISTICS, 1976, 4 (06) :1236-1239
[7]   NORMAL BAYESIAN DIALOGS [J].
BACHARACH, M .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION, 1979, 74 (368) :837-846
[8]   COMBINATION OF FORECASTS [J].
BATES, JM ;
GRANGER, CWJ .
OPERATIONAL RESEARCH QUARTERLY, 1969, 20 (04) :451-&
[9]  
BONANO EJ, 1990, NUREGCR5411 NUCL REG
[10]  
BONDUELLE Y, 1987, THESIS STANFORD U