Using Bayes' Rule to Update an Event's Probabilities Based on the Outcomes of Partially Similar Events

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.1110.0204

References

  • Abbas A., Budescu D., Yu H.-T., Haggerty R. A comparison of two probability encoding methods: Fixed probability vs. fixed variable values. Decision Anal. (2008) 5(4):190–202LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Accardi L., Hazewinkel M. DeFinetti's theorem. Encyclopedia of Mathematics (2001) (Springer-Verlag, New York) 121–134Google Scholar
  • Baillon A. Eliciting subjective probabilities through exchangeable events: An advantage and a limitation. Decision Anal. (2008) 5(2):76–87LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Bearden N., Wallsten T. Minerva-DM and sub-additive probability judgments. J. Behav. Decision Making (2004) 17(5):349–363CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Billot A., Gilboa I., Schmeidler D. An axiomatization of an exponential similarity function. (2004) . Mimeo, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, IsraelGoogle Scholar
  • Billot A., Gilboa I., Samet D., Schmeidler D. Probabilities as similarity-weighted frequencies. Econometrica (2005) 73(4):1125–1136CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bordley R. Estimating automotive elasticities from segment elasticities and first choice/second choice data. Rev. Econom. Statist. (1993) 75(3):455–462CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bordley R. Combining the opinions of experts who partition events differently. Decision Anal. (2009) 6(1):38–46LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Casella G., Berger J.Statistical Inference (2002) (Duxbury Press, Pacific Grove, CA) Google Scholar
  • Clemen R.Making Hard Decisions (1997) (South Western Educational Publishing, Mason, OH) Google Scholar
  • Dougherty M., Thomas R.Encyclopedia of Medical Decision Making (2009) (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA) Google Scholar
  • Dougherty M., Getty C., Ogden E. Minerva-DM: A memory processes model for judgments of likelihood. Psych. Rev. (1999) 106(1):180–209CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Fernandez M., Williams S. Closed-form expression for the Poisson-binomial probability density function. IEEE Trans. Aerospace Electronic Systems (2010) 46(2):803–817CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Gelman A., Carlin J., Stern H., Rubin D.Bayesian Data Analysis (2000) 2nd ed.(Chapman and Hall/CRC Texts in Statistical Science, London) Google Scholar
  • Glimcher P., Camerer C., Poldrack R., Fehrer E.Neuroeconomics: Decision Making and the Brain (2008) (Academic Press, New York) Google Scholar
  • Good T. A Bayesian significance test for multinomial experiments. J. Royal Statist. Soc. Ser. B. (1966) 29(3):399–443Google Scholar
  • Hardman D.Judgment and Decisionmaking: A Psychological Perspective (2009) (Blackwell Publishers, Boston) Google Scholar
  • Howard R. Decision analysis: Perspectives on inference, decision and experimentation. Proc. IEEE (1990) 58(5):632–643CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Johnson N. L., Kotz S., Balakrishnan N.Continuous Univariate Distributions (1995) 22nd ed.(Wiley, New York) Google Scholar
  • Merrick J. R. W. Getting the right mix of experts. Decision Anal. (2008) 5(1):43–52LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Mobus C. The analysis of non-symmetric similarity judgments: Drift model, comparison hypothesis, Tversky's contrast model and his focus hypothesis. Archives for Psych. (1979) 131(2):105–136Google Scholar
  • Predd D., Osherson D., Kulkarni S., Poor H. Aggregating probability assessments from incoherent and abstaining experts. Decision Anal. (2008) 5(4):177–189LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Schervish M., Seidenfeld T., Kadane J. Proper scoring rules, dominated forecasts, and coherence. Decision Anal. (2009) 6(4):202–221LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Schwarz G., Tversky A. On the reciprocity of proximity relations. J. Math. Psych. (1980) 22(3):157–175CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Thomas R., Dougherty M., Sprenger A., Harbison J. Diagnostic hypothesis generation and human judgment. Psych. Rev. (2008) 115(1):155–185CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Tversky A. Features of similarity. Psych. Rev. (1977) 84(4):327–352CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Witten I. H., Bell T. C. The zero-frequency problem: Estimating the probabilities of novel events in adaptive text compression. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory (1991) 37(4):1085–1094CrossrefGoogle Scholar
INFORMS site uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some are essential to make our site work; Others help us improve the user experience. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Please read our Privacy Statement to learn more.