Advertisement

Experiences with Eliciting Probabilities from Multiple Experts

  • Linda C. van der Gaag
  • Silja Renooij
  • Hermi J. M. Schijf
  • Armin R. Elbers
  • Willie L. Loeffen
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 299)

Abstract

Bayesian networks are typically designed in collaboration with a single domain expert from a single institute. Since a network is often intended for wider use, its engineering involves verifying whether it appropriately reflects expert knowledge from other institutes. Upon engineering a network intended for use across Europe, we compared the original probability assessments obtained from our Dutch expert with assessments from 38 experts in six countries. While we found large variances among the assessments per probability, very high consistency was found for the qualitative properties embedded in the series of assessments per assessor. The apparent robustness of these properties suggests the importance of enforcing them in a Bayesian network under construction.

Keywords

Bayesian Network Stochastic Dominance Probability Assessment Classical Swine Fever Elicitation Method 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    van der Gaag, L.C., Renooij, S., Witteman, C.L.M., Aleman, B., Taal, B.G.: How to elicit many probabilities. In: Laskey, K.B., Prade, H. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fifteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 647–654. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Renooij, S., Witteman, C.L.M.: Talking probabilities: communicating probabilistic information with words and numbers. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 22, 169–194 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johnson-Laird, P.N., Legrenzi, P., Girotto, V., Legrenzi, M.S., Caverni, J.-P.: Naive probability: A mental model theory of extensional reasoning. Psychological Review 106, 62–88 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Epley, N.: A tale of Tuned Decks? Anchoring as accessibility and anchoring as adjustment. In: Koehler, D.J., Harvey, N. (eds.) The Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making, pp. 240–256. Blackwell Publisher, Oxford (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jacowitz, K.E., Kahneman, D.: Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21, 1161–1166 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Levy, H.: Stochastic Dominance. Investment Decision Making under Uncertainty. Studies in Risk and Uncertainty, vol. 12. Springer, New York (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Linda C. van der Gaag
    • 1
  • Silja Renooij
    • 1
  • Hermi J. M. Schijf
    • 1
  • Armin R. Elbers
    • 2
  • Willie L. Loeffen
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Information and Computing SciencesUtrecht UniversityThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of VirologyCentral Veterinary Institute of Wageningen URThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations