IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/spr/isochp/978-3-319-65052-4_8.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Eliciting Multivariate Uncertainty from Experts: Considerations and Approaches Along the Expert Judgement Process

In: Elicitation

Author

Listed:
  • Christoph Werner

    (University of Strathclyde)

  • Anca M. Hanea

    (University of Melbourne)

  • Oswaldo Morales-Nápoles

    (Technological University Delft)

Abstract

In decision and risk analysis problems, modelling uncertainty probabilistically provides key insights and information for decision makers. A common challenge is that uncertainties are typically not isolated but interlinked which introduces complex (and often unexpected) effects on the model output. Therefore, dependence needs to be taken into account and modelled appropriately if simplifying assumptions, such as independence, are not sensible. Similar to the case of univariate uncertainty, which is described elsewhere in this book, relevant historical data to quantify a (dependence) model are often lacking or too costly to obtain. This may be true even when data on a model’s univariate quantities, such as marginal probabilities, are available. Then, specifying dependence between the uncertain variables through expert judgement is the only sensible option. A structured and formal process to the elicitation is essential for ensuring methodological robustness. This chapter addresses the main elements of structured expert judgement processes for dependence elicitation. We introduce the processes’ common elements, typically used for eliciting univariate quantities, and present the differences that need to be considered at each of the process’ steps for multivariate uncertainty. Further, we review findings from the behavioural judgement and decision making literature on potential cognitive fallacies that can occur when assessing dependence as mitigating biases is a main objective of formal expert judgement processes. Given a practical focus, we reflect on case studies in addition to theoretical findings. Thus, this chapter serves as guidance for facilitators and analysts using expert judgement.

Suggested Citation

  • Christoph Werner & Anca M. Hanea & Oswaldo Morales-Nápoles, 2018. "Eliciting Multivariate Uncertainty from Experts: Considerations and Approaches Along the Expert Judgement Process," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Luis C. Dias & Alec Morton & John Quigley (ed.), Elicitation, chapter 0, pages 171-210, Springer.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:isochp:978-3-319-65052-4_8
    DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-65052-4_8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Rafael Schwarzenegger & John Quigley & Lesley Walls, 2023. "Is eliciting dependency worth the effort? A study for the multivariate Poisson-Gamma probability model," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 237(5), pages 858-867, October.
    2. Christoph Werner & Tim Bedford & John Quigley, 2018. "Sequential Refined Partitioning for Probabilistic Dependence Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(12), pages 2683-2702, December.

    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:spr:isochp:978-3-319-65052-4_8. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.