Median Aggregation of Distribution Functions

When multiple redundant probabilistic judgments are obtained from subject matter experts, it is common practice to aggregate their differing views into a single probability or distribution. Although many methods have been proposed for mathematical aggregation, no single procedure has gained universal acceptance. The most widely used procedure is simple arithmetic averaging, which has both desirable and undesirable properties. Here we propose an alternative for aggregating distribution functions that is based on the median cumulative probabilities at fixed values of the variable. It is shown that aggregating cumulative probabilities by medians is equivalent, under certain conditions, to aggregating quantiles. Moreover, the median aggregate has better calibration than mean aggregation of probabilities when the experts are independent and well calibrated and produces sharper aggregate distributions for well-calibrated and independent experts when they report a common location-scale distribution. We also compare median aggregation to mean aggregation of quantiles.

[1]  Yael Grushka-Cockayne,et al.  Trimmed Opinion Pools and the Crowd's Calibration Problem , 2012, Manag. Sci..

[2]  Yael Grushka-Cockayne,et al.  Is it Better to Average Probabilities or Quantiles? , 2012, Manag. Sci..

[3]  Stephen C. Hora,et al.  An Analytic Method for Evaluating the Performance of Aggregation Rules for Probability Densities , 2010, Oper. Res..

[4]  T. Gneiting,et al.  Combining probability forecasts , 2010 .

[5]  Hassan S. Bakouch,et al.  Elements of Distribution Theory , 2007 .

[6]  R. L. Winkler,et al.  Advances in Decision Analysis: Aggregating Probability Distributions , 2007 .

[7]  A. Raftery,et al.  Probabilistic forecasts, calibration and sharpness , 2007 .

[8]  Thomas A. Severini Elements of Distribution Theory , 2005 .

[9]  Milan Merkle,et al.  Jensen's inequality for medians , 2005 .

[10]  H. N. Nagaraja,et al.  Order Statistics, Third Edition , 2005, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics.

[11]  Stephen C. Hora,et al.  Probability Judgments for Continuous Quantities: Linear Combinations and Calibration , 2004, Manag. Sci..

[12]  J. Ord,et al.  Principles of forecasting: A handbook for researchers and practitioners , 2002 .

[13]  J. Scott Armstrong,et al.  Principles of forecasting , 2001 .

[14]  Robert L. Winkler,et al.  Combining Probability Distributions From Experts in Risk Analysis , 1999 .

[15]  T. Modis,et al.  Experts in uncertainty , 1993 .

[16]  S. Hora,et al.  Assessment of probability distributions for continuous random variables: A comparison of the bisection and fixed value methods , 1992 .

[17]  Stan Kaplan,et al.  ‘Expert information’ versus ‘expert opinions’. Another approach to the problem of eliciting/ combining/using expert knowledge in PRA , 1992 .

[18]  Christian Genest,et al.  Combining Probability Distributions: A Critique and an Annotated Bibliography , 1986 .

[19]  K. McConway Marginalization and Linear Opinion Pools , 1981 .

[20]  R. L. Winkler Combining Probability Distributions from Dependent Information Sources , 1981 .

[21]  D. Clayton A model for association in bivariate life tables and its application in epidemiological studies of familial tendency in chronic disease incidence , 1978 .

[22]  Peter A. Morris,et al.  Combining Expert Judgments: A Bayesian Approach , 1977 .

[23]  N. Dalkey An Impossibility Theorem for Group Probability Functions , 1972 .

[24]  R. H. Rodine,et al.  Estimation of the population median , 1969 .

[25]  M. Stone The Opinion Pool , 1961 .

[26]  G. Brier VERIFICATION OF FORECASTS EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF PROBABILITY , 1950 .

[27]  R. A. Popa,et al.  Delphi , 1922, The Classical Review.