The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Methods For Combining Experts' Probability Assessments
Abstract
This article reviews statistical techniques for combining multiple probability distributions. The framework is that of a decision maker who consults several experts regarding some events. The experts express their opinions in the form of probability distributions. The decision maker must aggregate the experts' distributions into a single distribution that can be used for decision making. Two classes of aggregation methods are reviewed. When using a supra Bayesian procedure, the decision maker treats the expert opinions as data that may be combined with its own prior distribution via Bayes' rule. When using a linear opinion pool, the decision maker forms a linear combination of the expert opinions. The major feature that makes the aggregation of expert opinions difficult is the high correlation or dependence that typically occurs among these opinions. A theme of this paper is the need for training procedures that result in experts with relatively independent opinions or for aggregation methods that implicitly or explicitly model the dependence among the experts. Analyses are presented that show that m dependent experts are worth the same as k independent experts where k ≤ m. In some cases, an exact value for k can be given; in other cases, lower and upper bounds can be placed on k.
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
Wolpert, D. H. (1992) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/s0893-6080(05)80023-1 · Cited by 7,951
Solving Least Squares Problems
Lawson, C. L., & Hanson, R. J. (1995) · doi:10.1137/1.9781611971217 · Cited by 7,103
Bates, J. M., & Granger, C. W. J. (1969) · Journal of the Operational Research Society · doi:10.1057/jors.1969.103 · Cited by 3,201
Control Methods Used in a Study of the Vowels
Peterson, G. E., & Barney, H. L. (1952) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.1906875 · Cited by 2,837 · cited 1×
“The data consisted of the first two formant values for 10 vowels spoken by 75 different speakers ( Peterson and Barney 1952 ).”
Scoring Rules and the Evaluation of Probability Assessors
Winkler, R. L. (1969) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1969.10501037 · Cited by 271
Cited by
Bidirectional recurrent neural networks
Schuster, M., & Paliwal, K. K. (1997) · IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/78.650093 · Cited by 10,172
Ensembles of Learning Machines
Valentini, G., & Masulli, F. (2002) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/3-540-45808-5_1 · Cited by 276
Model averaging, optimal inference, and habit formation
FitzGerald, T. H. B., Dolan, R. J., & Friston, K. J. (2014) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00457 · Cited by 121
Metadata
- Authors
- Jacobs, R. A.
- Venue
- Neural Computation
- Publisher
- MIT Press - Journals
- Published
- 1995-09
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 867-888
- ISSN
- 0899-7667 (ISSN-L)
- 1530-888X
- OpenAlex
- W2095539364
- Cited by
- 372
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 23.74
- 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: Methods For Combining Experts' Probability Assessments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1162/neco.1995.7.5.867
- The paper
- Jacobs, R. A. (1995). Methods For Combining Experts' Probability Assessments. Neural Computation. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1995.7.5.867
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.