IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v193y2009i1p184-194.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Updating beliefs about variables given new information on how those variables relate

Author

Listed:
  • Bordley, Robert
  • Bier, Vicki

Abstract

Bayesian techniques specify how to update beliefs about a variable given information on that variable or related variables. In many cases, statistical analyses also provide information about the relationship between variables, but the Borel Paradox prohibits many natural ways of updating beliefs conditioned on information about a relationship. This paper presents a method by which beliefs can be updated without violating the Borel Paradox under certain circumstances. We apply our approach to relationships specified by a statistical model (i.e., regression), and relationships described by statistical simulation.

Suggested Citation

  • Bordley, Robert & Bier, Vicki, 2009. "Updating beliefs about variables given new information on how those variables relate," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 193(1), pages 184-194, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:193:y:2009:i:1:p:184-194
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377-2217(07)01052-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schweder, T. & Hjort, N.L., 1996. "Bayesian Synthesis or Likelihood Synthesis - What Does the Borel Paradox Say?," Memorandum 1996_013, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    2. Robert L. Winkler, 1981. "Combining Probability Distributions from Dependent Information Sources," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 479-488, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chang, Victor & Liu, Ben S.C. & Sudharshan, D. & Xu, Qianwen Ariel, 2021. "Towards an effective negotiation modeling: Investigating transboundary disputes with cases of lower possibilities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    2. Robert F. Bordley, 2023. "Lessons for Decision-Analysis Practice from the Automotive Industry," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 240-246, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Juanjuan Qin & Liguo Ren & Liangjie Xia, 2017. "Carbon Emission Reduction and Pricing Strategies of Supply Chain under Various Demand Forecasting Scenarios," Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research (APJOR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 34(01), pages 1-27, February.
    2. Anne Sofie Jore & James Mitchell & Shaun P. Vahey, 2010. "Combining forecast densities from VARs with uncertain instabilities," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(4), pages 621-634.
    3. Hall, Stephen G. & Mitchell, James, 2007. "Combining density forecasts," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 1-13.
    4. Stephen C. Hora, 2013. "A Note on the Aggregation of Event Probabilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(5), pages 909-914, May.
    5. Ali Mosleh & George Apostolakis, 1986. "The Assessment of Probability Distributions from Expert Opinions with an Application to Seismic Fragility Curves," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(4), pages 447-461, December.
    6. Yue, Xiaohang & Liu, John, 2006. "Demand forecast sharing in a dual-channel supply chain," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(1), pages 646-667, October.
    7. Jaspersen, Johannes G., 2022. "Convex combinations in judgment aggregation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 299(2), pages 780-794.
    8. Bergemann, Dirk & Ottaviani, Marco, 2021. "Information Markets and Nonmarkets," CEPR Discussion Papers 16459, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. Robert L. Winkler & Robert T. Clemen, 2004. "Multiple Experts vs. Multiple Methods: Combining Correlation Assessments," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 167-176, September.
    10. Christian Kascha & Francesco Ravazzolo, 2010. "Combining inflation density forecasts," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(1-2), pages 231-250.
    11. Dr. James Mitchell, 2009. "Measuring Output Gap Uncertainty," National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) Discussion Papers 342, National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
    12. Mark Freeman & Ben Groom, 2015. "Using equity premium survey data to estimate future wealth," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 45(4), pages 665-693, November.
    13. Xiaowei Zhu, 2017. "Outsourcing management under various demand Information Sharing scenarios," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 257(1), pages 449-467, October.
    14. Gai, Prasanna & Lou, Edmund & Wu, Sherry X., 2020. "Targeted disclosure and monetary policy flexibility: A simple model," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    15. Wilson, Kevin J., 2017. "An investigation of dependence in expert judgement studies with multiple experts," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 325-336.
    16. Lin, Shi-Woei & Bier, Vicki M., 2008. "A study of expert overconfidence," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 93(5), pages 711-721.
    17. Paola Monari & Patrizia Agati, 2001. "Fiducial inference in combining expert judgements," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 10(1), pages 81-97, January.
    18. Jaeseob Lim & Sang-Hun Lee, 2020. "Utility and use of accuracy cues in social learning of crowd preferences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-25, October.
    19. Jason R. W. Merrick, 2008. "Getting the Right Mix of Experts," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 5(1), pages 43-52, March.
    20. Tunç, Murat & Cavusoglu, Huseyin & Raghunathan, Srinivasan, 2021. "Online product reviews : Is a finer-grained rating scheme superior to a coarser one?," Other publications TiSEM ec57cbf3-7415-4427-aafc-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:193:y:2009:i:1:p:184-194. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.