Combining Experts’ Causal Judgments

نویسندگان

  • Dalal Alrajeh
  • Hana Chockler
  • Joseph Y. Halpern
چکیده

Consider a policymaker who wants to decide which intervention to perform in order to change a currently undesirable situation. The policymaker has at her disposal a team of experts, each with their own understanding of the causal dependencies between different factors contributing to the outcome. The policymaker has varying degrees of confidence in the experts’ opinions. She wants to combine their opinions in order to decide on the most effective intervention. We formally define the notion of an effective intervention, and then consider how experts’ causal judgments can be combined in order to determine the most effective intervention. We define a notion of two causal models being compatible, and show how compatible causal models can be combined. We then use it as the basis for combining experts causal judgments. We illustrate our approach on a number of real-life examples.

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

Verification and Validation of Multiple Agent Systems: Combining Agent Probabilistic Judgments

One of the principle issues in multiple agent systems is how to treat the judgments of the agents in those systems: should they be combined or treated separately? If the judgments are "substantially different" then that likely signals different models being employed by the agents. As a result, if the experts’ judgments are disparate, then it is unlikely that the judgments should be combined. Ho...

متن کامل

Combining Expert Judgments: the Classical and Copula Methods

Introduction Simulation models are frequently used to evaluate the effects of the energy and other economic sectors on the environment, safety, and other areas of concern. In many important contexts, such as risks of global climate change and risks of accident at nuclear power plants, key model parameters cannot be empirically estimated, and so values are obtained by expert judgment. While it s...

متن کامل

A method for processing the unreliable expert judgments about parameters of probability distributions

A method for combining two types of judgments about an object analyzed, which are elicited from experts, is considered in the paper. It is assumed that the probability distribution of a random variable is known, but its parameters may be determined by experts. The method is based on the use of the imprecise probability theory and allows us to take into account the quality of expert judgments, h...

متن کامل

Logical and Decisive Combining Criterion for Binary Group Decision Making

A new combining criterion, the Multiplicative Proportional Deviative Influence (MPDI) is presented for combining or aggregating multi-expert numerical judgments in Yes-or-No type illstructured group decision making situations. This newly proposed criterion performs well in comparison with the widely used aggregation means: the Arithmetic Mean (AM), and Geometric Mean (GM), especially in better ...

متن کامل

An Imprecise Model of Combining Expert Judgments About Quantiles

Most models of aggregating expert judgments assume that there is some precise probability distribution characterizing the system behavior and expert information allows us to compute parameters of this distribution. However, judgments elicited from experts are usually imprecise and unreliable due to the limited precision of human assessments, and any assumption concerning a certain distribution ...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

عنوان ژورنال:

دوره   شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2018