Titlebook: Elicitation; The Science and Art Luis C. Dias,Alec Morton,John Quigley Book 2018 Springer International Publishing AG 2018 Preference Elic

Myelin

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0141-3t. The two key mechanisms by which judgements may be pooled across experts are through striving for consensus, via behavioural aggregation, where experts share and discuss information, and via mathematical methods, where judgements are combined using a mechanistic rule. Mixed approaches combine elem

collateral

María Manzano,Manuel Crescencio Morenodgement studies. The few that exist emphasise different aggregation models, but none build a full Bayesian model to combine the judgements of multiple experts into the posterior distribution for a decision maker. Historically, Bayesian concepts have identified issues with current modelling approache

繁榮中國(guó)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2484-6her upon other features of the problem to which an expert can relate her experience. By mapping the quantity of interest to an expert’s experience we can use available empirical data about associated events to support the quantification of uncertainty. Our rationale contrasts with other approaches t

骨

Models of Container Port Security,allenge is that uncertainties are typically not isolated but interlinked which introduces complex (and often unexpected) effects on the model output. Therefore, dependence needs to be taken into account and modelled appropriately if simplifying assumptions, such as independence, are not sensible. Si

grotto

Varianzuntersuchungen am Bewertungsmodell,ng subject to the same biases consistently, different experts being subject to the same biases or experts sharing backgrounds and experience. In this chapter we consider the implications of these correlations for both mathematical and behavioural approaches to expert judgement aggregation. We introd

馬具

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39936-7 This shifts the focus of utility assessment to the identification of the benchmark and the sources of uncertainty in that benchmark. Identification of the benchmark is often easy when the benchmark is based on a status quo outcome, a preferred outcome or an undesirable outcome. Benchmarks are gener

皺痕

Elias Karakitsos,Lambros Varnavides. They are employ a divide-and-conquer modelling strategy in which the value of an option is conceptualised as a function (typically the sum) of the scores associated with the performance of the option on different attributes. This chapter outlines the concept of preferential independence, which has

面包屑

frugal

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21747-5 invalidating, for any pair of alternatives (.,?.), the assertion “.”. This comparison is grounded on the evaluation vectors of both alternatives, and on additional information concerning the decision maker’s preferences, typically accounting for two conditions: concordance and non-discordance. In d

會(huì)犯錯(cuò)誤

Maritime Governance and Policy-Makingvidual biases can be either cognitive, such as overconfidence, or motivational, such as wishful thinking. In addition, when making judgements in groups, decision makers and experts might be affected by group-level biases. These biases can create serious challenges to decision analysts, who need judg