Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 842

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A progress report on the training of probability assessors

Alpert, Marc, Raiffa, Howard·1982·Judgment under Uncertainty

Abstract

In prescriptive analyses of decisions under uncertainty, decision makers and their expert advisors are often called upon to assess judgmental probability distributions of quantities whose values are unknown to them. This chapter discusses some empirical findings addressed to such questions as: How well can untrained individuals perform such assessments? Do they manifest certain recurrent biases? How can assessors be calibrated? How can they be taught to become better assessors? This chapter deals only with assessments of uncertain quantities that can be thought of as taking on a continuum of possible values. Hence we shall work exclusively with univariate density functions and their cumulative distribution functions. Several different procedures are available for assessing probability distributions of continuous, univariate random variables, but we shall consider only one particular procedure that we and our colleagues have often used in practice. It is called the method of direct fractile assessments .

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/cbo9780511809477.022

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 842

Metadata

Authors
Alpert, M., & Raiffa, H.
Venue
Judgment under Uncertainty
Published
1982-04-30
Pages
294-305
OpenAlex
W1507663289
Cited by
842
References
0
FWCI
3.06
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A progress report on the training of probability assessors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/cbo9780511809477.022
The paper
Alpert, M., & Raiffa, H. (1982). A progress report on the training of probability assessors. Judgment under Uncertainty. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511809477.022

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.