Probabilistic Opinion Pooling
نویسندگان
چکیده
How can several individualsopinions on some factual matters be aggregated into uni ed collective opinions? This question arises in many contexts. A panel of climate experts may have to aggregate the panelistsconicting opinions into a compromise view, in order to deliver a report to the government. A jury may have to arrive at a collective opinion on the facts of a case, despite disagreements between the jurors, so that the court can reach a verdict. In Bayesian statistics, we may wish to specify some all-things-considered prior probabilities by aggregating the subjective prior probabilities of di¤erent statisticians. In meta-statistics, we may wish to aggregate the probability estimates that di¤erent statistical studies have produced for the same events. An individual agent may wish to combine his or her own opinions with those of another, so as to resolve any peer disagreements. Finally, in a purely intra-personal case, an agent may seek to reconcile di¤erent selvesby aggregating their conicting opinions on the safety of mountaineering, in order to decide whether to undertake a mountain hike and which equipment to buy.
منابع مشابه
Probabilistic opinion pooling generalized. Part one: general agendas
How can di¤erent individualsprobability assignments to some events be aggregated into a collective probability assignment? Classic results on this problem assume that the set of relevant events the agenda is a -algebra and is thus closed under disjunction (union) and conjunction (intersection). We drop this demanding assumption and explore probabilistic opinion pooling on general agendas. On...
متن کاملProbabilistic opinion pooling generalized. Part two: the premise-based approach
How can several individualsprobability functions on a given -algebra of events be aggregated into a collective probability function? Classic approaches to this problem usually require event-wise independence: the collective probability for each event should depend only on the individuals probabilities for that event. In practice, however, some events may be basic and others derivative, ...
متن کاملOpinion pooling on general agendas
How can di¤erent individualsprobability assignments to some events be aggregated into a collective probability assignment? Although there are several classic results on this problem, they all assume that the agendaof relevant events forms a -algebra, an overly demanding assumption for many practical applications. We drop this assumption and explore probabilistic opinion pooling on general ag...
متن کاملProbabilistic opinion pooling generalized Part one: General agendas1
How can di¤erent individualsprobability assignments to some events be aggregated into a collective probability assignment? Although there are several classic results on this problem, they all assume that the agendaof relevant events forms a -algebra, hence, is closed under taking disjunctions (unions) or conjunctions (intersections) of events. This assumption is overly demanding: in practice...
متن کاملWeighted Probabilistic Opinion Pooling Based on Cross-Entropy
In this work we focus on opinion pooling in the finite group of sources introduced in [1]. This approach, heavily exploiting KullbackLeibler divergence (also known as cross-entropy), allows us to combine sources’ opinions given in probabilistic form, i.e. represented by the probability mass function (pmf). However, this approach assumes that sources are equally reliable with no preferences on, ...
متن کاملProbabilistic opinion pooling generalized Part two: Premise-based opinion pooling
We consider the classical problem of aggregating di¤erent individualsprobability assignments (opinions) over a -algebra of events. In practice, some events represent basic propositions, such as it rainsor CO2 emissions cause global warming, while others represent combinations thereof, for instance disjunctions (unions) of basic events. It is plausible to treat the basic events as premises ...
متن کامل