Abstract
Whereas computers have traditionally excelled in deductive reasoning, most areas of science, engineering, medicine and policy analysis are dominated by inductive, or inexact reasoning. Uncertain conclusions are drawn from uncertain evidence via uncertain rules of inference. The ability to reason with uncertainty is sometimes considered the hallmark of human rationality. With the advent of expert systems, computer science has applied itself to the task of representing and implementing inexact reasoning in computer programs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Christensen-Szalanski, J. and Bushyhead, J. “Physicians’ use of probabilistic information in a real clinical setting” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 7, 928–935, 1981.
Cooke, R. Mendel, M. and Thijs, W. Calibration and Information in expert resolution Automatica, Januari 1988.
Cooke, R. “A theory of weights for combining expert opinion” Delft University of Technology, Report 87-25, 1987.
Fisher, G.W. “When oracles fail — a comparison of four procedures for aggregating subjective probability forecasts” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28 69–110, 1981.
Fuller, J. We Almost Lost Detroit Ballantine Books, New York, 1975.
Genest, C. and Zidek, J. Combining probability distributions: a critique and annotated bibliography, Statistical Science, vol. 1 nr. 1, 114–148, 1986.
De Groot, M. and Fienberg, S. Comparing probability forecasters: basic binary concepts and multivariate extensions. In Bayesian Inference and Decision Techniques, P. Goel and A. Zellner (eds), Elsevier, 1986.
Lichtenstein, S. Fischhoff, B. and Phillips, D. Calibration of probabilities: the state of the art to 1980, In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky (eds) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 306–335, 1982.
Lindley, D. and Singpurwalla, N. “Reliability and fault tree analysis using expert opinion” J. Amer. Stat. Assoc. 81/393 87–90, 1986.
Martz, H. and Bryson, M. “On combining data for estimating the frequency of low probability events…”Nuclear Science and Engineering 83, 267–280, 1983.
McConway, K. “Marginalization and linear opinion pools” J. Amer. Statis.Assoc. 76. 410–411, 1981.
Morris, P. Combining expert judgments: A Bayesian approach, Management Science vol 23, nr. 7, 679–693, 1977.
Mosleh A. and Apostolakis, G. “Models for the use of expert opinion” Low Probability High Consequence Risk Analysis (ed. Waller & Covello) Plenum Press, New York, 107–124, 1984.
Murphy, A. A new vector partition of the probability score, .J. of Applied Meteorology, 12 595–600, 1973.
Murphy, A. and Daan, H. “Subjective probability forecasting in the Netherlands, some operational and experimental results” Meteorolog. Rundschau 34/5 99–112. 1982.
Murphy, A. and Daan, H. “Impacts of feedback and experience on the quality of subjective probability forecasts: comparison of results from first and second years of the Zierikzee experiment” Mon. Weather Rev. 112/3 413–423, 1984.
Reactor Safety Study WASH 1400, NUREG-75/014, 1975.
Reactor Risk Reference Document NUREG/1150, 1987.
Roberts, H. Probabilistic prediction, J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 60, 50–62, 1965.
Sackman, H. Delphi Critique. Expert Opinion, Forecasting and Group Processes. Lexington Books, 1975.
Savage, L. Elicitation of personal probabilities and expectations, J. Amer. Statis. Assoc. vol. 66, nr. 336, 783–801, 1971
Seaver. D. “How groups can assess uncertainty: human interaction versus mathematical models” Proc. int. conf. cybernetics and soc. Washington DC. 19–21 sept. 1977.
Shooman and Sinkar, “Generation of reliability and safety data by analysis of expert opinion” Proceedings 1977 Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, p. 186–191.
Shuford, E. Albert, A. and Massengill, H. Admissible probability measurement procedures. Psychometrika. vol 31, nr. 2 125–145, 1966.
Wagner, C. “Allocation, Lehrer Models and the consensus of probabilities” Theory and Decision. 14, 207–220, 1982.
Winkler, R. and Murphy, A. “Reliability of subjective probability forecasts of precipitation and temperature” Appl. Stat 26/1 41–471977.
Winkler, R. and Murphy, A. “Good probability assessors”, J. of Applied Meteorology, vol. 7. 751–758, 1968.
Winkler, R. The consensus of subjective probability distributions, Management Science, vol. 15 nr. 2, 861–875, 1968.
Winkler, R. Scoring rules and the evaluation of probability assessors, J. Amer. Statist. Ass. 64, 1073–1078, 1969.
Winkler, R. On “good probability appraisers”. In Bayesian Inference and Decision Techniques. P. Goel and A. Zellner (eds) Elsevier 1986.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1988 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Cooke, R.M. (1988). Expert Systems’ Front End: Expert Opinion. In: Mitra, G., Greenberg, H.J., Lootsma, F.A., Rijkaert, M.J., Zimmermann, H.J. (eds) Mathematical Models for Decision Support. NATO ASI Series, vol 48. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-83555-1_32
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-83555-1_32
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-83557-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-83555-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive