Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Introduction and Overview of Structured Expert Judgement Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2021 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

4. Customized Structural Elicitation

verfasst von : Rachel L. Wilkerson, Jim Q. Smith

Erschienen in: Expert Judgement in Risk and Decision Analysis

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Expert elicitation is a powerful tool when modelling complex problems, especially in the common scenario when current probabilities are unknown and data is unavailable for certain regions of the probability space. Such methods are now widely developed, well understood, and have been used to model systems in a variety of domains including climate change, food insecurity, and nuclear risk assessment Barons et al. (2018), Rougier and Crucifix (2018), Hanea et al. (2006). However, eliciting expert probabilities faithfully has proved to be a sensitive task, particularly in multivariate settings. We argue that first eliciting structure is critical to the accuracy of the model, particularly as conducting a probability elicitation is time and resource-intensive.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Are Performance Weights Beneficial? Investigating the Random Expert Hypothesis
Nächstes Kapitel Bayesian Modelling of Dependence Between Experts: Some Comparisons with Cooke’s Classical Model
Literatur
Andersson, S. A. (2001). An alternative markov property for chain graphs. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 28(1), 33–85.
Barclay, L. M., Hutton, J. L., & Smith, J. Q. (2014). Chain event graphs for informed missingness. Bayesian Analysis, 9(1), 53–76.CrossRef
Barclay, L. M., Collazo, R. A., Smith, J. Q., Thwaites, P. A., & Nicholson, A. E. (2015). The dynamic chain event graph. Electronic Journal of Statistics, 9(2), 2130–2169.CrossRef
Barons, M. J., Wright, S. K., & Smith, J. Q. (2018). Eliciting probabilistic judgements for integrating decision support systems. In Elicitation (pp. 445–478). Springer.
Bedford, T., & Cooke, R. (2001). Probabilistic risk analysis: Foundations and methods. University of Cambridge Press.
Bedford, T., & Cooke, R. M. (2002). Vines—A new graphical model for dependent random variables. Annals of Statistics, 30(4), 1031–1068.CrossRef
Bouckaert, R. R., & Studeny, M. (1995). Chain graphs: Semantics and expressiveness. In European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty (pp. 69–76). Springer.
Chilton, M., & Rose, D. (2009). A rights-based approach to food insecurity in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 99(7), 1203–11.CrossRef
Collazo, A. R., Görgen, C., & Smith, J. Q. (2017). Chain Event Graphs.
Cooke, R. M. (1991). Experts in uncertainty: Opinion and subjective probability in science. New York: Oxford University Press.
Costa, L., Smith, J., Nichols, T., Cussens, J., Duff, E. P., & Makin, T. R. (2015). Searching multiregression dynamic models of resting-state fMRI networks using Integer programming. Bayesian Analysis, 10(2), 441–478.CrossRef
Cox, D. R. & Wermuth, N. (2014). Multivariate dependencies: Models, analysis and interpretation.
Cox, D. R., & Wermuth, N. (1993). Linear Dependencies represented by Chain Graphs. Statistical Science, 8(3), 204–283.CrossRef
Dowler, E. A., & O’Connor, D. (2012). Rights-based approaches to addressing food poverty and food insecurity in Ireland and UK. Social Science & Medicine, 74(1), 44–51.CrossRef
Gundersen, C., Kreider, B., & Pepper, J. (2011). The economics of food insecurity in the United States. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 33(3), 281–303.CrossRef
Hagan, A. O.’, & Oakley, J. (2014). SHELF: the Sheffield elicitation framework.
Hanea, A. M., Kurowicka, D., & Cooke, R. M. (2006). Hybrid method for quantifying and analyzing Bayesian Belief Nets. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 22, 709–729.CrossRef
Hanea, A. M., McBride, M. F., Burgman, M. A., & Wintle, B. C. (2018). Classical meets modern in the IDEA protocol for structured expert judgement. Journal of Risk Research, 21(4), 417–433.CrossRef
Kaye, L., Lee, E., & Chen, Y. Y. (2013). Barriers to Food stamps in New York State: A perspective from the field. Journal of Poverty, 17(1), 13–28.
Korb, K. B., & Nicholson, A. E. (2009). Bayesian Artificial Intelligence.
Liverani, S., & Smith, J. Q. (2015). Bayesian selection of graphical regulatory models. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 77, 87–104.CrossRef
Loveless, T. A. (2010). Food stamp/Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Receipt in the Past 12 Months for Households by State: 2010 and 2011 American Community Survey Briefs.
Nolen, E., & Krey, K. (2015). The effect of universal-free school breakfast on milk consumption and nutrient intake. Food Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5(4), 23–33.
Pearl, J. (2014). Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems: Networks of plausible inference. Elsevier.
Pearl, J., & Verma, T. S. (1995). A theory of inferred causation. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, 134, 789—-811.
Pearl, J. (2009). Causality (2nd ed.). New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Queen, C. M., & Albers, C. J. (2009). Intervention and causality: Forecasting traffic flows using a dynamic Bayesian network. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 104(486), 669–681.
Richardson, T., & Spirtes, P. (2002). Ancestral graph Markov models. The Annals of Statistics, 30(4), 962–1030.CrossRef
Rougier, J., & Crucifix, M. (2018). Uncertainty in climate science and climate policy. Climate Modelling, 361—-380.
Shafer, G. (1996). The Art of causal conjecture. The MIT Press.
Smith, J. Q. (1993). Multiregression dynamic models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 55(4), 849–870.
Smith, J. Q. (2010). Bayesian decision analysis: Principles and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Smith, J. Q., & Anderson, P. E. (2008). Conditional independence and chain event graphs. Artificial Intelligence, 172(1), 42–68.CrossRef
Smith, J. Q., & Figueroa, L. J. (2007). A causal algebra for dynamic flow networks. Advances in Probabilistic Graphical Models, 213, 39–54.CrossRef
Spirtes, P., & Zhang, K. (2016). Causal discovery and inference: Concepts and recent methodological advances. Applied Informatics, 3(1), 3.CrossRef
Steffen, S. L. (1996). Graphical models. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Thwaites, P. A., & Smith, J. Q. (2015). A new method for tackling asymmetric decision problems. (Id).
West, M., & Harrison, J. (1997). Bayesian forecasting and dynamic models, New York.
Wilkerson, R. L., & Krey, K. (2015). Associations between neighborhoods and summer meals sites : Measuring access to federal summer meals programs. Journal of Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy for Children at Risk, 6(2).
Metadaten
Titel
Customized Structural Elicitation
verfasst von
Rachel L. Wilkerson
Jim Q. Smith
Copyright-Jahr
2021
Buch
Expert Judgement in Risk and Decision Analysis

Print ISBN: 978-3-030-46473-8

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-46474-5

Copyright-Jahr: 2021

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46474-5_4

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise