IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v33y2013i9p1650-1660.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Probability Boxes to Model Elicited Information: A Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • V. J. Roelofs
  • W. Roelofs

Abstract

Governments are responsible for making policy decisions, often in the face of severe uncertainty about the factors involved. Expert elicitation can be used to fill information gaps where data are not available, cannot be obtained, or where there is no time for a full‐scale study and analysis. Various features of distributions for variables may be elicited, for example, the mean, standard deviation, and quantiles, but uncertainty about these values is not always recorded. Distributional and dependence assumptions often have to be made in models and although these are sometimes elicited from experts, modelers may also make assumptions for mathematical convenience (e.g., assuming independence between variables). Probability boxes (p‐boxes) provide a flexible methodology to analyze elicited quantities without having to make assumptions about the distribution shape. If information about distribution shape(s) is available, p‐boxes can provide bounds around the results given these possible input distributions. P‐boxes can also be used to combine variables without making dependence assumptions. This article aims to illustrate how p‐boxes may help to improve the representation of uncertainty for analyses based on elicited information. We focus on modeling elicited quantiles with nonparametric p‐boxes, modeling elicited quantiles with parametric p‐boxes where the elicited quantiles do not match the elicited distribution shape, and modeling elicited interval information.

Suggested Citation

  • V. J. Roelofs & W. Roelofs, 2013. "Using Probability Boxes to Model Elicited Information: A Case Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1650-1660, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:33:y:2013:i:9:p:1650-1660
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01943.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01943.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01943.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baker, Erin & Chon, Haewon & Keisler, Jeffrey, 2009. "Advanced solar R&D: Combining economic analysis with expert elicitations to inform climate policy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(Supplemen), pages 37-49.
    2. John Paul Gosling & Andy Hart & David C. Mouat & Mirzet Sabirovic & Simon Scanlan & Alick Simmons, 2012. "Quantifying Experts’ Uncertainty About the Future Cost of Exotic Diseases," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 881-893, May.
    3. Garthwaite, Paul H. & Kadane, Joseph B. & O'Hagan, Anthony, 2005. "Statistical Methods for Eliciting Probability Distributions," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 100, pages 680-701, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Usher, Will & Strachan, Neil, 2013. "An expert elicitation of climate, energy and economic uncertainties," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 811-821.
    2. Gregory F. Nemet & Laura Diaz Anadon & Elena Verdolini, 2017. "Quantifying the Effects of Expert Selection and Elicitation Design on Experts’ Confidence in Their Judgments About Future Energy Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(2), pages 315-330, February.
    3. Bistline, John E., 2014. "Energy technology expert elicitations: An application to natural gas turbine efficiencies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 177-187.
    4. John Foster & Liam Wagner & Phil Wild & Junhua Zhao & Lucas Skoofa & Craig Froome, 2011. "Market and Economic Modelling of the Intelligent Grid: End of Year Report 2009," Energy Economics and Management Group Working Papers 09, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    5. Maarten Ijzerman & Lotte Steuten, 2011. "Early assessment of medical technologies to inform product development and market access," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 9(5), pages 331-347, September.
    6. Baker, Erin & Bosetti, Valentina & Salo, Ahti, 2016. "Finding Common Ground when Experts Disagree: Belief Dominance over Portfolios of Alternatives," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 243147, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    7. Claire Copeland & Britta Turner & Gareth Powells & Kevin Wilson, 2022. "In Search of Complementarity: Insights from an Exercise in Quantifying Qualitative Energy Futures," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-21, July.
    8. Robert Stewart & Marie Urban & Samantha Duchscherer & Jason Kaufman & April Morton & Gautam Thakur & Jesse Piburn & Jessica Moehl, 2016. "A Bayesian machine learning model for estimating building occupancy from open source data," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(3), pages 1929-1956, April.
    9. Mort Webster & Karen Fisher-Vanden & David Popp & Nidhi Santen, 2017. "Should We Give Up after Solyndra? Optimal Technology R&D Portfolios under Uncertainty," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(S1), pages 123-151.
    10. Audrey Laude & Christian Jonen, 2011. "Biomass and CCS: The influence of the learning effect," Working Papers halshs-00829779, HAL.
    11. Nicholas M. Kiefer, 2011. "Default estimation, correlated defaults, and expert information," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(2), pages 173-192, March.
    12. Miller, Joshua Benjamin & Sanjurjo, Adam, 2018. "How Experience Confirms the Gambler's Fallacy when Sample Size is Neglected," OSF Preprints m5xsk, Center for Open Science.
    13. Dai, Min & Jia, Yanwei & Kou, Steven, 2021. "The wisdom of the crowd and prediction markets," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 222(1), pages 561-578.
    14. A Zuashkiani & D Banjevic & A K S Jardine, 2009. "Estimating parameters of proportional hazards model based on expert knowledge and statistical data," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(12), pages 1621-1636, December.
    15. K J Wilson & M Farrow, 2010. "Bayes linear kinematics in the analysis of failure rates and failure time distributions," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 224(4), pages 309-321, December.
    16. Nemet, Gregory F. & Baker, Erin & Jenni, Karen E., 2013. "Modeling the future costs of carbon capture using experts' elicited probabilities under policy scenarios," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 218-228.
    17. Ibsen Chivatá Cárdenas & Saad S.H. Al‐Jibouri & Johannes I.M. Halman & Frits A. van Tol, 2014. "Modeling Risk‐Related Knowledge in Tunneling Projects," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 323-339, February.
    18. A. El-Bassiouny & M. Jones, 2009. "A bivariate F distribution with marginals on arbitrary numerator and denominator degrees of freedom, and related bivariate beta and t distributions," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 18(4), pages 465-481, November.
    19. Nicholas M. Kiefer, 2017. "Correlated defaults, temporal correlation, expert information and predictability of default rates," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(6-9), pages 699-712, October.
    20. Azamat Abdymomunov & Sharon Blei & Bakhodir Ergashev, 2015. "Integrating Stress Scenarios into Risk Quantification Models," Journal of Financial Services Research, Springer;Western Finance Association, vol. 47(1), pages 57-79, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:riskan:v:33:y:2013:i:9:p:1650-1660. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.