Independence Preservation in Expert Judgment Synthesis
نویسنده
چکیده
We prove, with a few minor exceptions, that if P1 and P2 are probability distributions on the countable set S for which the fixed events E and F are independent, then, both for the standard Euclidean metric and for any metric inducing a topology coarser than the Euclidean topology, there exists a third probability distribution P3 on S that preserves this independence and is equidistant from P1 and P2. We contrast this result with an impossibility theorem from the probability pooling literature, and note its connection with the vigorously debated “epistemic peer problem” in philosophical decision theory. Mathematics Subject Classification (2010). Primary 62A01; Secondary 03B42, 03B48, 62C99.
منابع مشابه
Further evidence against independence preservation in expert judgement synthesis
When a decision maker chooses to form his/her own probability distribution by combining the opinions of a number of experts, it is sometimes recommended that he/she should do so in such a way as to preserve any form of expert agreement regarding the independence of the events of interest. In this paper, we argue against this recommendation. We show that for those probability spaces which contai...
متن کاملPropositionwise judgment aggregation: the general case
In the theory of judgment aggregation, it is known for which agendas of propositions it is possible to aggregate individual judgments into collective ones in accordance with the Arrow-inspired requirements of universal domain, collective rationality, unanimity preservation, non-dictatorship and propositionwise independence. But it is only partially known (e.g., only in the monotonic case) for w...
متن کاملAnalysis of Correlated Expert Judgments from Extended Pairwise Comparisons
We develop a Bayesian multivariate analysis of expert judgment elicited using an extended form of pair-wise comparisons. The method can be used to estimate the effect of multiple factors on the probability of an event and can be applied in risk analysis and other decision problems. The analysis provides variance predictions of the quantity of interest that incorporate dependencies amongst the v...
متن کاملCombining Expert Judgment by Hierarchical Modeling: an Application to Physician Staffing
Expert panels are playing an increasingly important role in U.S. health policy decision making. A fundamental issue in these applications is how to synthesize the judgments of individual experts into a group judgment. In this paper we propose an approach to synthesis based on Bayesian hierarchical models, and apply it to the problem of determining physician sta ng at medical centers operated by...
متن کاملList Which worlds are possible ? A judgment aggregation problem
Suppose the members of a group (e.g., committee, jury, expert panel) each form a judgment on which worlds in a given set are possible, subject to the constraint that at least one world is possible but not all are. The group seeks to aggregate these individual judgments into a collective judgment, subject to the same constraint. I show that no judgment aggregation rule can solve this problem in ...
متن کامل