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
[71]  
Linstone HA., 1975, The Delphi method: techniques and applications, V1st ed.
[72]   Combining expert judgment by hierarchical modeling: An application to physician staffing [J].
Lipscomb, J ;
Parmigiani, G ;
Hasselblad, V .
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 1998, 44 (02) :149-161
[73]  
Lock A., 1987, Judgmental Forecasting, P109
[74]   STRUCTURING KNOWLEDGE RETRIEVAL - AN ANALYSIS OF DECOMPOSED QUANTITATIVE JUDGMENTS [J].
MACGREGOR, D ;
LICHTENSTEIN, S ;
SLOVIC, P .
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES, 1988, 42 (03) :303-323
[75]   AVERAGES OF FORECASTS - SOME EMPIRICAL RESULTS [J].
MAKRIDAKIS, S ;
WINKLER, RL .
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 1983, 29 (09) :987-996
[76]  
MENDEL MB, 1989, IEEE T SYST MAN CYB, V36, P6
[77]   QUANTIFYING JUDGMENTAL UNCERTAINTY - METHODOLOGY, EXPERIENCES, AND INSIGHTS [J].
MERKHOFER, MW .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS MAN AND CYBERNETICS, 1987, 17 (05) :741-752
[78]  
MORGAN MG, 1990, UNCERTAINTY GUIDE DE
[79]   COMBINING EXPERT JUDGMENTS - BAYESIAN-APPROACH [J].
MORRIS, PA .
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 1977, 23 (07) :679-693
[80]   DECISION ANALYSIS EXPERT USE [J].
MORRIS, PA .
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE SERIES A-THEORY, 1974, 20 (09) :1233-1241