Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2311.14487

Reconciliation of expert priors for quantities and events and application within the probabilistic Delphi method

Kevin J. Wilson·Malcolm Farrow·Simon French·David Hartley
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We consider the problem of aggregating the judgements of a group of experts to form a single prior distribution representing the judgements of the group. We develop a Bayesian hierarchical model to reconcile the judgements of the group of experts based on elicited quantiles for continuous quantities and probabilities for one-off events. Previous Bayesian reconciliation methods have not been used widely, if at all, in contrast to pooling methods and consensus-based approaches. To address this we embed Bayesian reconciliation within the probabilistic Delphi method. The result is to furnish the outcome of the probabilistic Delphi method with a direct probabilistic interpretation, with the resulting prior representing the judgements of the decision maker. We can use the rationales from the Delphi process to group the experts for the hierarchical modelling. We illustrate the approach with applications to studies evaluating erosion in embankment dams and pump failures in a water pumping station, and assess the properties of the approach using the TU Delft database of expert judgement studies. We see that, even using an off-the-shelf implementation of the approach, it out-performs individual experts, equal weighting of experts and the classical method based on the log score.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Kevin J. Wilson, Malcolm Farrow, Simon French, David Hartley. 2023-11-24. Reconciliation of expert priors for quantities and events and application within the probabilistic Delphi method. https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.14487

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗