The DOI matches its Crossref record; 84 of the 84 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Combining Probability Distributions From Experts in Risk Analysis
Abstract
This paper concerns the combination of experts' probability distributions in risk analysis, discussing a variety of combination methods and attempting to highlight the important conceptual and practical issues to be considered in designing a combination process in practice. The role of experts is important because their judgments can provide valuable information, particularly in view of the limited availability of “hard data” regarding many important uncertainties in risk analysis. Because uncertainties are represented in terms of probability distributions in probabilistic risk analysis (PRA), we consider expert information in terms of probability distributions. The motivation for the use of multiple experts is simply the desire to obtain as much information as possible. Combining experts' probability distributions summarizes the accumulated information for risk analysts and decision‐makers. Procedures for combining probability distributions are often compartmentalized as mathematical aggregation methods or behavioral approaches, and we discuss both categories. However, an overall aggregation process could involve both mathematical and behavioral aspects, and no single process is best in all circumstances. An understanding of the pros and cons of different methods and the key issues to consider is valuable in the design of acombination process for a specific PRA. The output, a ”combined probabilitydistribution,” can ideally be viewed as representing a summary of the current state of expert opinion regarding the uncertainty of interest.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3 · Cited by 4,851
Social Choice and Individual Values
Baumol, W. J., & Arrow, K. J. (1952) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1907815 · Cited by 4,699
Bates, J. M., & Granger, C. W. J. (1969) · Journal of the Operational Research Society · doi:10.1057/jors.1969.103 · Cited by 3,201
(1982) · Houghton Mifflin eBooks · Cited by 2,650
“Clinical versus Actuarial Judgment.”
Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.2648573 · Cited by 2,298
The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications
J., J. E., Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (1976) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1268751 · Cited by 2,228
Combining forecasts: A review and annotated bibliography
Clemen, R. T. (1989) · International Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1016/0169-2070(89)90012-5 · Cited by 2,164
Self-citationMahalanobis, P. C. (1954) · Dialectica · doi:10.1111/j.1746-8361.1954.tb01124.x · Cited by 1,717
Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis
Morgan, M. G., & Henrion, M. (1990) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511840609 · Cited by 1,711
La prévision : ses lois logiques, ses sources subjectives
de Finetti, B. (1937) · French digital mathematics library (Numdam) · Cited by 1,642
Cited by
Future cost and performance of water electrolysis: An expert elicitation study
Schmidt, O., Gambhir, A., Staffell, I., Hawkes, A., Nelson, J., & Few, S. (2017) · International Journal of Hydrogen Energy · doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.10.045 · Cited by 2,067
Advantages and challenges of Bayesian networks in environmental modelling
Uusitalo, L. (2007) · Ecological Modelling · doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.11.033 · Cited by 1,118
Eliciting Expert Knowledge in Conservation Science
MARTIN, T. G., BURGMAN, M. A., FIDLER, F., KUHNERT, P. M., LOW‐CHOY, S., MCBRIDE, M., & MENGERSEN, K. (2012) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01806.x · Cited by 829
Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis
Montibeller, G., & von Winterfeldt, D. (2015) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.12360 · Cited by 578
Sentiment analysis of blogs by combining lexical knowledge with text classification
Melville, P., Gryc, W., & Lawrence, R. D. (2009) · Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining · doi:10.1145/1557019.1557156 · Cited by 503
Metadata
- Authors
- Clemen, R. T., & Winkler, R. L.
- Venue
- Risk Analysis
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1999-04
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 187-203
- ISSN
- 0272-4332 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-6924
- OpenAlex
- W4248996458
- Cited by
- 816
- References
- 84
- FWCI
- 3.58
- Type
- journal article
- 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: Combining Probability Distributions From Experts in Risk Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00399.x
- The paper
- Clemen, R. T., & Winkler, R. L. (1999). Combining Probability Distributions From Experts in Risk Analysis. Risk Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00399.x
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.