IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v28y2008i6p1699-1709.html

A Multinomial‐Dirichlet Model for Analysis of Competing Hypotheses

Author

Listed:
  • Kristin A. Duncan
  • Jonathan L. Wilson

Abstract

Analysis of competing hypothesis, a method for evaluating explanations of observed evidence, is used in numerous fields, including counterterrorism, psychology, and intelligence analysis. We propose a Bayesian extension of the methodology, posing the problem in terms of a multinomial‐Dirichlet hierarchical model. The yet‐to‐be observed true hypothesis is regarded as a multinomial random variable and the evaluation of the evidence is treated as a structured elicitation of a prior distribution on the probabilities of the hypotheses. This model provides the user with measures of uncertainty for the probabilities of the hypotheses. We discuss inference, such as point and interval estimates of hypothesis probabilities, ratios of hypothesis probabilities, and Bayes factors. A simple example involving the stadium relocation of the San Diego Chargers is used to illustrate the method. We also present several extensions of the model that enable it to handle special types of evidence, including evidence that is irrelevant to one or more hypotheses, evidence against hypotheses, and evidence that is subject to deception.

Suggested Citation

  • Kristin A. Duncan & Jonathan L. Wilson, 2008. "A Multinomial‐Dirichlet Model for Analysis of Competing Hypotheses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1699-1709, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:28:y:2008:i:6:p:1699-1709
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01139.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01139.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01139.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. Douglas L. Weed, 2005. "Weight of Evidence: A Review of Concept and Methods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1545-1557, December.
    2. Elisabeth Paté‐Cornell, 2002. "Fusion of Intelligence Information: A Bayesian Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(3), pages 445-454, June.
    3. Robert T. Clemen & Robert L. Winkler, 1999. "Combining Probability Distributions From Experts in Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 187-203, 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. Li Zhang & Ying-Ying Zhang, 2022. "The Bayesian Posterior and Marginal Densities of the Hierarchical Gamma–Gamma, Gamma–Inverse Gamma, Inverse Gamma–Gamma, and Inverse Gamma–Inverse Gamma Models with Conjugate Priors," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(21), pages 1-27, October.

    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. Avner Engel & Shalom Shachar, 2006. "Measuring and optimizing systems' quality costs and project duration," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 259-280, September.
    2. P. Daniel Wright & Matthew J. Liberatore & Robert L. Nydick, 2006. "A Survey of Operations Research Models and Applications in Homeland Security," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 514-529, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Ine H. J. Van Der Fels‐Klerx & Louis H. J. Goossens & Helmut W. Saatkamp & Suzan H. S. Horst, 2002. "Elicitation of Quantitative Data from a Heterogeneous Expert Panel: Formal Process and Application in Animal Health," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(1), pages 67-81, February.
    5. Minh Ha-Duong, 2008. "Hierarchical fusion of expert opinion in the Transferable Belief Model, application on climate sensitivity," Post-Print halshs-00112129, HAL.
    6. Pennings, Clint L.P. & van Dalen, Jan & Rook, Laurens, 2019. "Coordinating judgmental forecasting: Coping with intentional biases," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 46-56.
    7. Jeffrey M. Keisler, 2005. "Additivity of Information Value in Two‐Act Linear Loss Decisions with Normal Priors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 351-359, April.
    8. Chunchang Zhang & Hu Sun & Yuanyuan Zhang & Gen Li & Shibo Li & Junyu Chang & Gongqian Shi, 2023. "Fire Accident Risk Analysis of Lithium Battery Energy Storage Systems during Maritime Transportation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-12, September.
    9. Jason R. W. Merrick, 2008. "Getting the Right Mix of Experts," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 5(1), pages 43-52, March.
    10. Gregory F. Nemet & Erin Baker, 2009. "Demand Subsidies Versus R&D: Comparing the Uncertain Impacts of Policy on a Pre-commercial Low-carbon Energy Technology," The Energy Journal, , vol. 30(4), pages 49-80, October.
    11. Wang, Xiaoqian & Hyndman, Rob J. & Li, Feng & Kang, Yanfei, 2023. "Forecast combinations: An over 50-year review," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 1518-1547.
    12. Gillingham, Kenneth & Nordhaus, William & Anthoff, David & Bosetti, Valentina & McJeon, Haewon & Blanford, Geoffrey & Christensen, Peter & Reilly, John & Sztorc, Paul, "undated". "Modeling Uncertainty in Climate Change: A Multi-Model Comparison," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 232219, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    13. Richard Volkert & Jerrell Stracener & Junfang Yu, 2014. "Incorporating a Measure of Uncertainty into Systems of Systems Development Performance Measures," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 297-312, September.
    14. Erin Baker & Olaitan Olaleye, 2013. "Combining Experts: Decomposition and Aggregation Order," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1116-1127, June.
    15. Anca M. Hanea & Marissa F. McBride & Mark A. Burgman & Bonnie C. Wintle, 2018. "The Value of Performance Weights and Discussion in Aggregated Expert Judgments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1781-1794, September.
    16. Marta O. Soares & Jo C. Dumville & Rebecca L. Ashby & Cynthia P. Iglesias & Laura Bojke & Una Adderley & Elizabeth McGinnis & Nikki Stubbs & David J. Torgerson & Karl Claxton & Nicky Cullum, 2013. "Methods to Assess Cost-Effectiveness and Value of Further Research When Data Are Sparse," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(3), pages 415-436, April.
    17. Johannes Müller-Trede & Shoham Choshen-Hillel & Meir Barneron & Ilan Yaniv, 2018. "The Wisdom of Crowds in Matters of Taste," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(4), pages 1779-1803, April.
    18. David J. Johnstone, 2007. "The Parimutuel Kelly Probability Scoring Rule," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 4(2), pages 66-75, June.
    19. Marco Marozzi & Mario Bolzan & Simone Di Zio, 2024. "Robust weighted aggregation of expert opinions in futures studies," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 342(3), pages 1471-1493, November.
    20. Igor Linkov & Susan Cormier & Joshua Gold & F. Kyle Satterstrom & Todd Bridges, 2012. "Using Our Brains to Develop Better Policy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(3), pages 374-380, March.

    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:28:y:2008:i:6:p:1699-1709. 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.