The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Consensus of Subjective Probability Distributions
Abstract
“‘But we can't agree whether A or B is correct,' he concluded, ‘and so we're collecting expert opinions, weighting them appropriately, and programming WESCAC to arbitrate the whole question.’” (John Barth, Giles Goat-Boy, p. 664.) In the Bayesian framework, quantified judgments about uncertainty are an indispensable input to methods of statistical inference and decision. If a decision maker has little knowledge with regard to the parameters of interest, he may decide to consult a number of experts and obtain their quantified judgments in the form of subjective probability distributions. If this is the case, the decision maker must somehow combine the distributions assessed by the experts and form a single distribution to be used as an input to a formal Bayesian analysis. Several methods for combining the distributions are suggested, some involving mathematical formulae and some involving feedback and/or group discussion. These methods are compared under certain assumptions regarding the form of the distributions and also under experimental conditions.
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
Cited by
Degroot, M. H. (1974) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1974.10480137 · Cited by 4,004
A tutorial on modeling and analysis of dynamic social networks. Part I
Proskurnikov, A. V., & Tempo, R. (2017) · Annual Reviews in Control · doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2017.03.002 · Cited by 553
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
Consensus theoretic classification methods
Benediktsson, J. A., & Swain, P. H. (1992) · IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/21.156582 · Cited by 357
A tutorial on modeling and analysis of dynamic social networks. Part II
Proskurnikov, A. V., & Tempo, R. (2018) · Annual Reviews in Control · doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2018.03.005 · Cited by 294
Metadata
- Authors
- Winkler, R. L.
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 1968-10
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- B-61-B-75
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W2100326009
- Cited by
- 369
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.38
- 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: The Consensus of Subjective Probability Distributions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/mnsc.15.2.b61
- The paper
- Winkler, R. L. (1968). The Consensus of Subjective Probability Distributions. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.15.2.b61
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.
