Comment on Cooke's classical method

@article{Clemen2008CommentOC,
  title={Comment on Cooke's classical method},
  author={Robert T. Clemen},
  journal={Rel. Eng. & Sys. Safety},
  year={2008},
  volume={93},
  pages={760-765}
}
Several of the papers in this special issue are in one way or another linked to Cooke’s ‘‘classical’’ method for combining expert probability distributions. This comment focuses on characteristics of that method. In particular, I consider two questions: does the weighting scheme give the experts a positive incentive to report their beliefs honestly for each variable? How does Cooke’s method perform when evaluated out-of-sample? r 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 

From This Paper

Figures and tables from this paper.

Citations

Publications citing this paper.
Showing 1-10 of 24 extracted citations

References

Publications referenced by this paper.
Showing 1-10 of 17 references

Experts in uncertainty: opinions and subjective probability in science

  • RM Cooke
  • 1991
Highly Influential
6 Excerpts

Allocating the weights in the linear opinion pool

  • C Genest, KJ McConway
  • J Forecasting
  • 1990
Highly Influential
3 Excerpts

The M3-competition

  • S Makridakis, M. Hibon
  • Int J Forecasting
  • 2000

Subjective probability accuracy analysis

  • JF Yates
  • Subjective probability
  • 1994

The M-2 competition: a real-time judgmentally based forecasting study

  • S Makridakis, C Chatfield, M Hibon, M Lawrence, T Mills, K Ord
  • Int J Forecasting
  • 1993

A general method for comparing probability assssors

  • MJ Schervish
  • Ann Stat 1989;17:1856–79
  • 1989
1 Excerpt

Similar Papers

Loading similar papers…