Statistical Methods and Applications

, Volume 10, Issue 1–3, pp 81–97 | Cite as

Fiducial inference in combining expert judgements

  • Paola Monari
  • Patrizia Agati
Statistical Methods


In the expert use problem, hierarchical models provide an ideal perspective for classifying understanding and generalising the aggregative algoithms suitable to compose experts' opinions in a single synthesis distribution. After suggesting to look at Peter A. Morris' (1971, 1974, 1977) Bayesian model in such a light, this paper addresses the problem of modelling the multidimensional ‘performance function’, which encodes aggregator's beliefs about each expert's assessment ability and the degree of dependence among the experts. Whenever the aggregator has not an empirically founded probability distribution for the experts' performances, the proposed fiducial procedure provides a rational and very flexible tool for enabling the performance function to be specified with a relatively small number of assessments: moreover, it warrants aggregator's beliefs about the experts in terms of personal long run frequencies.

Key words

Fiducial inference expert judgement hierarchical Bayes calibration function 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agti P (1997) Stime fiduciali di probabilìtà incognite. StatisticaLVII (3), 383–396Google Scholar
  2. Agati P (1998) Stime fiduciali di probabilità nell'aggregazione bayesiana di informazioni. StatisticaLVIII (4), 655–668Google Scholar
  3. Aitchison J, Brown JAC (1973) The lognormal distribution. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Buehler, RJ (1980) Fiducial inference. In Fienberg SE, Hinkley DV (eds.) R.A. Fisher: an appreciation. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Clemen, RT (1986) Calibration and the aggregation of probabilities. Management Science32, 312–314Google Scholar
  6. Clemen, RT, Fisher GW, Winkler RL (2000) Assessing dependence: some experimental results. Management Science46, 1100–1115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clemen, RT, Winkler RL (1985) Limits for the precision and value of information from dependent sources. Operation Research33, 427–442MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Clemen, RT, Winkler RL (1990) Unanimity and compromise among probability forecasters. Management Science36: 767–779MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Clemen, RT, Winkler RL (1993) Aggregating point estimates. A flexible modeling approach. Management Science39, 501–515MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Clemen, RT, Winkler RL (1999) Combining probability distributions from experts in risk analysis. Risk Analysis19, 187–203Google Scholar
  11. Cooke RM (1991) Experts in uncertainty. Opinion and subjective probability in science. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Dawid AP (1982) The well-calibrated Bayesian. Journal of the American Statistical Association77, 605–613MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Finetti B (1937) La prévision: ses lois logiques, ses sources subjectives. Annals de l'Institute Henry Poincaré7, 1–60 [Translated: (1963) Foresight: its logical laws, its subjective sources. In: Kyburg, Smokler (eds.) Studies in subjective probability, pp. 97–158, Wiley, New York]MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. De Finetti B (1954) Media di decisioni e media di opinioni. Bulletin of the International Statistical InstituteXXXIV, 1–14Google Scholar
  15. Fisher RA (1930) Inverse probability. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society26, 528–535MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fisher RA (1935) The fiducial argument in statistical inference. Annals of Eugenics6, 391–398Google Scholar
  17. Fisher RA (1956, second edition 1959) Statistical methods and scientific inference. Oliver & Boyd, EdinburghMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Fisher RA (1957) The underworld of probability. Sankhya18, 201–210MATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Freeling ANS (1981) Reconciliation of multiple probability assessments. Organizational behavior and human performance28, 395–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. French S (1980) Updating of belief in the light of someone else's opinion. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A143, 43–48MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. French S (1985) Group consensus probability distributions: a critical survey. In: Bernardo JM et al., (eds.) Bayesian statistics 2, pp. 183–201., Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  22. French S (1986) Calibration and the expert problem. Management Science32, 315–321Google Scholar
  23. Gelfand AE, Mallick BK, Dey DK (1995) Modeling expert opinion rising as a partial probabilistic specification Journal of American Statistical Association90, 598–604MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Genest C, Schervish MJ (1985) Modeling expert judgments for Bayesian updating. Annals of Statistics13, 1198–1212MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. Genest, C., Zidek, JV (1986) Combining probability distributions: a critique and an annotated bibliography. Statistical Science,1, 114–148MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. Gokhale DV, Press SJ (1982) Assessment of a prior distribution for the correlation coefficient in a bivariate normal distribution. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A145, 237–249MATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Kalbfleisch JG (1979) Probability and statistical inference, vol.I. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Lindley DV (1982) The improvement of probability judgements. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A145, 117–126MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. Lindley DV (1983) Reconciliation of probability distributions. Operations Research,31, 866–880MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. Lindley DV (1985) Reconciliation of discrete probability distributions. In: Bernardo JM et al. (eds.) Bayesian statistics 2, pp. 375–390. Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  31. Lindley DV (1986) Another look at an axiomatic approach to expert resolution. Management Science32, 303–306Google Scholar
  32. Lindley DV (1990) The 1988 Wald Memorial Lectures: the present position in Bayesian statistics. Statistical Science5, 44–89MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. Lindley DV, Tversky A, Brown RV (1979) On the reconciliation of probability assessments. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A142, 146–180MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. Morris CN, Normand SL (1992) Hierarchical models for combining information and for meta-analyses. In: Bernardo JM et al. (eds.) Bayesian statistics 4, pp. 321–344. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  35. Morris PA (1971) Bayesian expert resolution. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Engineering-Economic Systems, Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  36. Morris PA (1974) Decision analysis expert use. Management Science20, 1233–1241MATHGoogle Scholar
  37. Morris PA (1977) Combining expert judgements: a Bayesian approach. Management Science23, 679–693MATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Morris PA (1983) An axiomatic approach to expert resolution. Management Science29, 24–32Google Scholar
  39. Morris PA (1986) Observations on expert resolution. Management Science32, 321–328Google Scholar
  40. Spiegelhalter DJ, Cowell RG (1992) Learning in probabilistic expert systems. In: Bernardo JM et al. (eds.) Bayesian statistics 4, pp. 447–465. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  41. Winkler RL, (1981) Combining probability distributions from dependent information sources. Management Science27, 479–488MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Winkler RL (1986) Expert resolution. Management Science32, 298–303Google Scholar
  43. Winkler RL, Clemen RT (1992) Sensitivity of weights in combining forecasts. Operations Research40, 609–614MATHGoogle Scholar
  44. Wright G, Ayton P (1987) Judsemental forecasting. Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paola Monari
    • 1
  • Patrizia Agati
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Sciencze StatisticheUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations