Expert Knowledge Elicitation: Subjective but Scientific

ABSTRACT Expert opinion and judgment enter into the practice of statistical inference and decision-making in numerous ways. Indeed, there is essentially no aspect of scientific investigation in which judgment is not required. Judgment is necessarily subjective, but should be made as carefully, as objectively, and as scientifically as possible. Elicitation of expert knowledge concerning an uncertain quantity expresses that knowledge in the form of a (subjective) probability distribution for the quantity. Such distributions play an important role in statistical inference (for example as prior distributions in a Bayesian analysis) and in evidence-based decision-making (for example as expressions of uncertainty regarding inputs to a decision model). This article sets out a number of practices through which elicitation can be made as rigorous and scientific as possible. One such practice is to follow a recognized protocol that is designed to address and minimize the cognitive biases that experts are prone to when making probabilistic judgments. We review the leading protocols in the field, and contrast their different approaches to dealing with these biases through the medium of a detailed case study employing the SHELF protocol. The article ends with discussion of how to elicit a joint probability distribution for multiple uncertain quantities, which is a challenge for all the leading protocols. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.

[1]  D. Kahneman Thinking, Fast and Slow , 2011 .

[2]  D. Kuhn,et al.  Judgements under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases , 1984 .

[3]  John Paul Gosling,et al.  SHELF: The Sheffield Elicitation Framework , 2018 .

[4]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[5]  Allen Parducci,et al.  Range-frequency compromise in judgment. , 1963 .

[6]  Anthony O'Hagan,et al.  The Role of Expert Judgment in Statistical Inference and Evidence-Based Decision-Making , 2019, The American statistician.

[7]  Anthony O'Hagan,et al.  Probabilistic uncertainty specification: Overview, elaboration techniques and their application to a mechanistic model of carbon flux , 2012, Environ. Model. Softw..

[8]  F. Ramsey Truth and Probability , 2016 .

[9]  Mark A. Burgman,et al.  A practical guide to structured expert elicitation using the IDEA protocol , 2018 .

[10]  B. D. Finetti,et al.  Theory of Probability: A Critical Introductory Treatment , 2017 .

[11]  R. Cooke Experts in Uncertainty: Opinion and Subjective Probability in Science , 1991 .

[12]  Roger M. Cooke,et al.  TU Delft expert judgment data base , 2008, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[13]  B. D. Finetti,et al.  Foresight: Its Logical Laws, Its Subjective Sources , 1992 .

[14]  Roger M. Cooke,et al.  On the performance of social network and likelihood-based expert weighting schemes , 2008, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[15]  George Wright,et al.  The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis , 1999 .

[16]  Mark A. Burgman,et al.  Classical meets modern in the IDEA protocol for structured expert judgement , 2018 .

[17]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Fault trees: Sensitivity of estimated failure probabilities to problem representation. , 1978 .

[18]  J. Eichel Victims Of Groupthink A Psychological Study Of Foreign Policy Decisions And Fiascoes , 2016 .

[19]  Roger M Cooke,et al.  Out-of-sample validation for structured expert judgment of Asian carp establishment in Lake Erie , 2014, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[20]  I. Janis Victims of Groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. By Irving L. Janis. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972. viii + 276 pp. Map, illustrations, chart, notes, sources, bibliography, and index. Cloth, $7.95; paper $4.50.) , 1973 .

[21]  Robert L. Winkler,et al.  Judgments under Uncertainty , 2006 .

[22]  J. Hahn Victims Of Groupthink A Psychological Study Of Foreign Policy Decisions And Fiascoes , 2016 .

[23]  Jeremy E. Oakley,et al.  Uncertain Judgements: Eliciting Experts' Probabilities , 2006 .

[24]  Mark A. Burgman,et al.  Trusting Judgements: How to Get the Best out of Experts , 2015 .

[25]  L. J. Savage,et al.  The Foundations of Statistics , 1955 .

[26]  Roger M. Cooke,et al.  Uncertainty Analysis with High Dimensional Dependence Modelling: Kurowicka/Uncertainty Analysis with High Dimensional Dependence Modelling , 2006 .