Accurate information sources are vital prerequisites for good decision making. Here, we consider a multiple participant setting, where all decision makers have a collection of neighbours with whom they share their beliefs about some common relevant uncertain quantity. When determining which course of action to follow, a decision maker takes into account all the information received from her neighbours. Over time, in light of the returns observed from choices made, decision makers update their own beliefs over the uncertain event and also adjust the degree of consideration they afford to the opinions of each neighbour based on the level of reliability their information is ascertained to have. In this article, we derive and discuss a methodology, the plug-in approach, by which this can be done, and discuss some suitable justification for this. We include an illustrative risk-based example which further demonstrates the merits of the method, before concluding with a discussion on further work and potential alternatives.
BunnDW.A Bayesian approach to the linear combination of forecasts. Oper Res Quart1975; 26(2): 325–329.
3.
CookeR.Experts in uncertainty: opinion and subjective probability in science (Environmental ethics and science policy series). New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
4.
CookeR.Expert judgement studies. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2007; 93: 655–677.
5.
ClemenRTWinklerRL.Combining probability distributions from experts in risk analysis. Risk Anal1999; 19: 187–203.
6.
GoldsteinM.Bayes linear analysis. Encycl Stat Sci1999; 3: 29–34.
7.
GoldsteinMWooffD.Bayes linear statistics, theory and methods (Wiley series in probability and statistics). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2007.
8.
WisseBBedfordTQuigleyJ.Expert judgement combination using moment methods. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2008; 93: 675–686.
9.
QuigleyJWilsonKJWallsL. A Bayes linear Bayes method for estimation of correlated event rates. Risk Anal2013; 33(12): 2209–2224.
10.
RandellDGoldsteinMJonathanP.Bayes linear variance structure learning for inspection of large scale physical systems. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk and Reliability2014; 228: 13–18.
11.
FrenchS.Aggregating expert judgement. Rev Real Acad Cienc2011; 105(1): 181–206.
12.
O’HaganA.Eliciting expert beliefs in substantial practical applications. J Roy Stat Soc D: Sta1998; 47(1): 21–35.
13.
DalkeyNC. The Delphi method: an experimental study of group opinions. Report for United States Air Force Project Rand. Report no. RM-5888-PR, June1969. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation.
14.
DelbecqALvandeVenAHGustafsonDH.Group techniques for program planning. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman, 1975.
15.
GenestCZidekJV.Combining probability distributions: a critique and an annotated bibliography. Stat Sci1986; 1(1): 114–135.
16.
LindleyDVSingpurwallaND.Reliability (and fault tree) analysis using expert opinions. J Am Stat Assoc1986; 81(393): 87–90.
17.
JouiniMNClemenRT.Copula methods for aggregating expert opinions. Oper Res1996; 44(3): 444–457.
18.
DawidAPDeGrootMHMorteraJ. Coherent combinations of experts’ opinions. Test1995; 4(2): 263–313.
19.
GenestCWeerahandiSZidekJV.Aggregating opinions through logarithmic pooling. Theor Decis1984; 17: 61–70.
20.
HeskesT.Selecting weighting factors in logarithmic opinion pools. In: JordanMIKearnsMJSollaSA (eds) Advance in neural information processing systems. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1998, pp.266–272.
21.
CookeRGoossensLLHJ. TU Delft expert judgement data base. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2008; 93: 657–674.
22.
ClemenRT.Comments on Cooke’s classical method. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2008; 93: 760–765.
23.
EggstaffJWMazzuchiTASarkanaS.The effect of the number of seed variables on the performance of Cooke’s classical model. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2014; 121: 72–82.
24.
FlandoliFGiorgiEAspinallWP. Comparision of a new expert elicitation model with the classical model, equal weights and single experts, using a cross-validation technique. Reliab Eng Syst Safe2011; 96(10): 1292–1310.
25.
DeGrootMHMorteraJ.Optimal linear opinion pools. Manage Sci1991; 37(5): 546–558.
26.
LaplaceS.Theorie analytique des probabilités. Paris: Ve Courcier, 1812.
27.
EggstaffJWMazzuchiTASarkanaS.The development of progress plans using a performance-based expert judgment model to assess technical performance and risk. Syst Eng2013; 17(4): 375–391.
28.
WilsonSMcDaidK.Deciding how long to test software. Statistician2001; 50(2): 117–134.
29.
NicolaiRPDekkerR.Chapter 11. Optimal maintenance of multi-component systems: a review. In: KobbacyKAHMurthyDNP (eds) Complex system maintenance handbook (Springer series in reliability engineering). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2008, pp.263–286.
30.
StarrC.Risk criteria for nuclear power plants: a pragmatic proposal. Risk Anal1981; 1(2): 113–120.
31.
CoxLAJr.Confronting deep uncertainties in risk analysis. Risk Anal2012; 32(10): 1607–1929.
32.
MetropolisNRosenbluthAWRosenbluthMN. Equations of state calculations by fast computing machines. J Chem Phys1953; 21(6): 1087–1092.
33.
BernoulliD.Comentarii Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis Petropolitanae. Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk (translation, 1954). Econometrica1738; 22: 22–36.
34.
Von NeumannJMorgensternO. Theory of games and economic behaviour. 2nd ed.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1944.
35.
CyertRMDeGrootMH.Adaptive utility. In: DayRHGrovesT (eds) Adaptive economic models. New York: Academy Press, 1975, pp.223–246.
36.
HouldingBCoolenFPA. Sequential adaptive utility decision making for system failure correction. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk and Reliability2007; 221(4): 285–295.
37.
HouldingBCoolenFPA. Adaptive utility and trial aversion. J Stat Plan Infer2011; 141(2): 734–747.
