Evidence aggregation in expert judgments

  • Sergio F. Garribba
  • Andrea Servida
Late Arrivals
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 313)


Experts are asked for percentiles of the seismic capacity of a particular structural component. The problem is to aggregate separate bodies of evidence. It can happen that experts characterize by different schemes of reasoning, provide interactive estimates, have non-comparable levels of competence, rely upon accumulated knowledge that hides superpositions. Conventional Bayesian approach may not allow to comprehend all the complexity of the situation. Or the corresponding formal tools would become too cumbersome. Conversely, belief functions offer ground for consistent treatment of the several sources of imprecision and uncertainty. Three cases of practical interest are considered and models for aggregating evidence are developed accordingly. First, is the case of equivalent and independent experts; second, are non-equivalent and independent experts; finally, is the situation where experts are viewed as dependent though equivalent. Clearly, the general case where experts are both non-equivalent and dependent would be treated as the combination of the last two ones. Some of the merits of the models for aggregating evidence are discussed. Specifically, it is shown how the measures obtained could relate with probabilities and set upper and lower bounds.


Expert opinions Inductive inference Evidence theory Expert weighting Dependent information sources 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    A. Mosleh, G. Apostolakis — The Assessment of Probability Distributions from Expert Opinions with an Application to Seismic Fragility Curves; Risk Analysis, 6, 447–461, 1986.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    N. Rescher — The Limits of Science; University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1984.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    S. Garribba, A. Servida — Fuzzy vs. Probabilistic Methods for Combining Evidence from Expert Judgments; in Advanced Structural Reliability II; A.C. Lucia (ed.); Reidel, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    G. Shafer — A Mathematical Theory of Evidence; Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1976.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    D. Dubois, H. Prade — A Set-Theoretic View of Belief Functions. Logical Operations and Approximations by Fuzzy Sets; Int. J. General Systems, 12, 193–226, 1986.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    R.R. Yager — On the Dempster — Shafer Framework and New Combination Rules; Information Science, 41, 93–138, 1987.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    E.M. Oblow — O-Theory. A Hybrid Uncertainty Theory; Int. J. General Systems, 13, 95–106, 1987.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sergio F. Garribba
    • 1
  • Andrea Servida
    • 2
  1. 1.Nucl. Engng. Dept., Politecnico di MilanoMilanoItaly
  2. 2.JRC, Commission of the European CommunitiesPettenNetherlands

Personalised recommendations