From the Editor—Median Aggregation, Scoring Rules, Expert Forecasts, Choices with Binary Attributes, Portfolio with Dependent Projects, and Information Security

References

• Baucells M, Carrasco JA, Hogarth RM (2008) Cumulative dominance and heuristic performance in binary multiattribute choice. Oper. Res. 56:1289–1304.Link, Google Scholar
• Baucells M, Sarin R (2013) Guided decision processes. EURO J. Decision Processes 1:24–44.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bickel JE (2007) Some comparisons among quadratic, spherical, and logarithmic scoring rules. Decision Anal. 4:49–65.Link, Google Scholar
• Bickel JE (2010) Scoring rules and decision analysis education. Decision Anal. 7:346–357.Link, Google Scholar
• Cavusoglu H, Raghunathan S (2004) Configuration of detection software: A comparison of decision and game theory approaches. Decision Anal. 1:131–148.Link, Google Scholar
• Cavusoglu H, Kwark Y, Mai B, Raghunathan S (2013) Passenger profiling and screening for aviation security in the presence of strategic attackers. Decision Anal. 10:63–81.Link, Google Scholar
• Collopy F, Armstrong JS (1992) Rule-based forecasting: Development and validation of an expert systems approach to combining time series extrapolations. Management Sci. 38:1394–1414.Link, Google Scholar
• Glaser M, Langer T, Weber M (2007) On the trend recognition and forecasting ability of professional traders. Decision Anal. 4:176–193.Link, Google Scholar
• Hogarth RM, Karelaia N (2005) Simple models for multiattribute choice with many alternatives: When it does and does not pay to face trade-offs with binary attributes. Management Sci. 51:1860–1872.Link, Google Scholar
• Johnstone DJ, Jose VRR, Winkler RL (2011) Tailored scoring rules for probabilities. Decision Anal. 8:256–268.Link, Google Scholar
• Keiser J (2004) Value of information in portfolio decision analysis. Decision Anal. 1:177–189.Link, Google Scholar
• Kilgour DM, Gerchak Y (2004) Elicitation of probabilities using competitive scoring rules. Decision Anal. 1:108–113.Link, Google Scholar
• Lichtendahl KC Jr, Winkler RL (2007) Probability elicitation, scoring rules, and competition among forecasters. Management Sci. 53:1745–1755.Link, Google Scholar
• Lichtendahl KC Jr, Grushka-Cockayne Y, Winkler RL (2013) Is it better to average probabilities or quantiles? Management Sci. 59:1594–1611.Link, Google Scholar
• Nau RF (1985) Should scoring rules be “effective”? Management Sci. 31:527–535.Link, Google Scholar
• Paté-Cornell ME (2012) Games, risks, and analytics: Several illustrative cases involving national security and management situations. Decision Anal. 9:186–203.Link, Google Scholar
• Predd JB, Osherson DN, Kulkarni SR, Poor HV (2008) Aggregating probabilistic forecasts from incoherent and abstaining experts. Decision Anal. 5:177–189.Link, Google Scholar
• Schervish MJ, Seidenfeld T, Kadane JB (2009) Proper scoring rules, dominated forecasts, and coherence. Decision Anal. 6:202–221.Link, Google Scholar
• Wang G, Kulkarni SR, Poor HV, Osherson DN (2011) Aggregating large sets of probabilistic forecasts by weighted coherent adjustment. Decision Anal. 8:128–144.Link, Google Scholar
• Winkler RL (1994) Evaluating probabilities: Asymmetric scoring rules. Management Sci. 40:1395–1405.Link, Google Scholar
• Winkler RL, Clemen RT (2004) Multiple experts vs. multiple methods: Combining correlation assessments. Decision Anal. 1:167–176.Link, Google Scholar
• Zan K, Bickel JE (2013) Components of portfolio value of information. Decision Anal. 10:171–185.Link, Google Scholar