Aggregating Causal Judgments
نویسندگان
چکیده
Decision-making typically requires judgments about causal relations: we need to know the causal e§ects of our actions and the causal relevance of various environmental factors. We investigate how several individualsí causal judgments can be aggregated into collective causal judgments. First, we consider the aggregation of causal judgments via the aggregation of probabilistic judgments, and identify the limitations of this approach. We then explore the possibility of aggregating causal judgments independently of probabilistic ones. Formally, we introduce the problem of causal-network aggregation. Finally, we revisit the aggregation of probabilistic judgments when this is constrained by prior aggregation of qualitative causal judgments.
منابع مشابه
A Psychological Model for Aggregating Judgments of Magnitude
In this paper, we develop and illustrate a psychologicallymotivated model for aggregating judgments of magnitude across experts. The model assumes that experts’ judgments are perturbed from the truth by both systematic biases and random error, and it provides aggregated estimates that are implicitly based on the application of nonlinear weights to individual judgments. The model is also easily ...
متن کاملAre Causal Structure and Intervention Judgments Inextricably Linked? A Developmental Study
The application of the formal framework of causal Bayesian Networks to children's causal learning provides the motivation to examine the link between judgments about the causal structure of a system, and the ability to make inferences about interventions on components of the system. Three experiments examined whether children are able to make correct inferences about interventions on different ...
متن کاملAggregating Causal Judgements
Decision making typically requires judgements about causal relations: we need to know both the causal e¤ects of our actions and the causal relevance of various environmental factors. Judgements about the nature and strength of causal relations often di¤er, even among experts. How to handle such diversity is the topic of this paper. First we consider the possibility of aggregating causal judgeme...
متن کاملA loss function approach to group preference aggregation in the AHP
The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a useful method in aggregating group preference. We suggest a new method that uses consistency ratio as group evaluation quality. For this method, we introduce Taguchi's loss function. We also develop an evaluation reliability function to derive group weight. Lastly, we perform four experiments in order to confirm validity of this method. 1. Introduction ...
متن کاملCausal Asymmetry in Inductive Judgments
We propose a normative model of inductive reasoning about causal arguments, those in which there is a direct causal relation between categories. The model derives inductive judgments from a causal Bayesian network that represents the causal structure of the argument. It supports inferences in the causal direction (e.g. a mother is drug-addicted, how likely is it that her newborn baby is drug-ad...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2012