Bias, Information, Noise: The BIN Model of Forecasting

References

• Arkes HR (1991) Costs and benefits of judgment errors: Implications for debiasing. Psych. Bull. 110(3):486–498.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Armstrong JS (2001) Principles of Forecasting: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners, vol. 30 (Springer, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Atanasov P, Rescober P, Stone E, Swift SA, Servan-Schreiber E, Tetlock P, Ungar L, Mellers B (2017) Distilling the wisdom of crowds: Prediction markets vs. prediction polls. Management Sci. 63(3):691–706.Link, Google Scholar
• Attali Y, Budescu D, Arieli-Attali M (2020) An item response approach to calibration of confidence judgments. Decision 7(1):1–19.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bliss CI (1934) The method of probits. Science 79(2037):38–39.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brier GW (1950) Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability. Monthly Weather Rev. 78(1):1–3.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brighton H, Gigerenzer G (2015) The bias. J. Bus. Res. 68(8):1772–1784.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bröcker J (2009) Reliability, sufficiency, and the decomposition of proper scores. Quart. J. Roy. Meteorological Soc. 135(643):1512–1519.Google Scholar
• Budescu DV, Chen E (2014) Identifying expertise to extract the wisdom of crowds. Management Sci. 61(2):267–280.Link, Google Scholar
• Budescu DV, Por HH, Broomell SB, Smithson M (2014) The interpretation of IPCC probabilistic statements around the world. Nature Climate Change 4(6):508–512.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carpenter B, Gelman A, Hoffman M, Lee D, Goodrich B, Betancourt M, Brubaker M, Guo J, Li P, Riddell A (2017) Stan: A probabilistic programming language. j. statist. software 76(1):1–32, doi:10.18637/jss.v076.i01.Google Scholar
• Chandler D, Levitt SD, List JA (2011) Predicting and preventing shootings among at-risk youth. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(3):288–292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chang W, Chen E, Mellers B, Tetlock P (2016) Developing expert political judgment: The impact of training and practice on judgmental accuracy in geopolitical forecasting tournaments. Judgment Decision Making 11(5):509–526.Google Scholar
• Clemen RT, Winkler RL (1999) Combining probability distributions from experts in risk analysis. Risk Anal. 19(2):187–203.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis-Stober CP, Budescu DV, Broomell SB, Dana J (2015) The composition of optimally wise crowds. Decision Anal. 12(3):130–143.Link, Google Scholar
• De Bondt WF, Thaler RH (1995) Financial decision-making in markets and firms: A behavioral perspective. Jarrow RA, Maksimovic V, Ziemba WT, eds. Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science, vol. 9 (Elsevier, Amsterdam) 385–410.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Erev I, Wallsten TS, Budescu DV (1994) Simultaneous over-and underconfidence: The role of error in judgment processes. Psych. Rev. 101(3):519–527.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Everett B (2013) An Introduction to Latent Variable Models (Springer Science & Business Media).Google Scholar
• Farrell S (2011) Social influence benefits the wisdom of individuals in the crowd. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108(36):E625.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Friedman JA, Baker JD, Mellers BA, Tetlock PE, Zeckhauser R (2018) The value of precision in probability assessment: Evidence from a large-scale geopolitical forecasting tournament. Internat. Stud. Quart. 62(2):410–422.Google Scholar
• Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Dunson DB, Vehtari A, Rubin DB (2013) Bayesian Data Analysis (Chapman and Hall, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer G (2018) The bias bias in behavioral economics. Rev. Behavioral Econom. 5(3–4):303–336.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (2002) Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (Cambridge University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneiting T, Raftery AE (2007) Strictly proper scoring rules, prediction, and estimation. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 102(477):359–378.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hart S (1989) Shapley value. Eatwell J, Milgate M, Newman P, eds. The New Palgrave: Game Theory (The Macmillian Press Limited, London), 210–216.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henning G (1989) Meanings and implications of the principle of local independence. Language Testing 6(1):95–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahana MJ, Aggarwal EV, Phan TD (2018) The variability puzzle in human memory. J. Experiment. Psych. Learn. Memory Cognition 44(12):1857–1863.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, New York).Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Rosenfield AM, Gandhi L, Blaser T (2016) Noise: How to overcome the high, hidden cost of inconsistent decision making. Harvard Bus. Rev. 94(10):38–46.Google Scholar
• Kang JS, Kuznetsova P, Luca M, Choi Y (2013) Where not to eat? Improving public policy by predicting hygiene inspections using online reviews. Yarowsky D, Baldwin T, Korhonen A, Livescu K, Bethard S, eds. Proc. 2013 Conf. Empirical Methods Natl. Language Processing (Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA), 1443–1448.Google Scholar
• Karelaia N, Hogarth RM (2008) Determinants of linear judgment: A meta-analysis of lens model studies. Psych. Bull. 134(3):404–426.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kennedy C, McGeeney K, Keeter S, Patten E, Perrin A, Lee A, Best J (2018) Implications of moving public opinion surveys to a single-frame cell-phone random-digit-dial design. Public Opinion Quart. 82(2):279–299.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kerr NL, MacCoun RJ, Kramer GP (1996) Bias in judgment: Comparing individuals and groups. Psych. Rev. 103(4):687–719.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Larrick RP, Soll JB (2006) Intuitions about combining opinions: Misappreciation of the averaging principle. Management Sci. 52(1):111–127.Link, Google Scholar
• Lazer DM, Baum MA, Benkler Y, Berinsky AJ, Greenhill KM, Menczer F, Metzger MJ, et al.. (2018) The science of fake news. Science 359(6380):1094–1096.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee MD (2018) Bayesian methods in cognitive modeling Wixted J, Wagenmakers E‐J, eds. Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ) vol. 5, 37–84.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lerner JS, Tetlock PE (1999) Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psych. Bull. 125(2):255–275.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1989) Generalized Linear Models, 2nd ed. (Chapman & Hall, London).Google Scholar
• Mellers B, Stone E, Murray T, Minster A, Rohrbaugh N, Bishop M, Chen E, et al.. (2015) Identifying and cultivating superforecasters as a method of improving probabilistic predictions. Perspect. Psych. Sci. 10(3):267–281.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mellers B, Ungar L, Baron J, Ramos J, Gurcay B, Fincher K, Scott SE, et al.. (2014) Psychological strategies for winning a geopolitical forecasting tournament. Psych. Sci. 25(5):1106–1115.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Murphy AH (1973) A new vector partition of the probability score. J. Appl. Meteorology 12(4):595–600.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Murphy AH, Winkler RL (1987) A general framework for forecast verification. Monthly Weather Rev. 115(7):1330–1338.Crossref, Google Scholar
• O’Hagan A, Buck CE, Daneshkhah A, Eiser JR, Garthwaite PH, Jenkinson DJ, Oakley JE, Rakow T (2006) Uncertain Judgements: Eliciting Experts’ Probabilities (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pfeifer PE (2016) The promise of pick-the-winners contests for producing crowd probability forecasts. Theory and Decision 81(2):255–278.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prelec D, Seung HS, McCoy J (2017) A solution to the single-question crowd wisdom problem. Nature 541(7638):532–535.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ravishanker N, Dey DK (2001) A First Course in Linear Model Theory (CRC Press, London).Google Scholar
• Satopää VA, Pemantle R, Ungar LH (2016) Modeling probability forecasts via information diversity. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 111(516):1623–1633.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Satopää VA, Jensen ST, Pemantle R, Ungar LH (2017) Partial information framework: Model-based aggregation of estimates from diverse information sources. Electronic J. Statist. 11(2):3781–3814.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Satopää VA, Baron J, Foster DP, Mellers BA, Tetlock PE, Ungar LH (2014) Combining multiple probability predictions using a simple logit model. Internat. J. Forecasting 30(2):344–356.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shapley LS (1953) A value for n-person games. Contributions to the Theory of Games 2(28):307–317.Google Scholar
• Tetlock PE (2017) Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tetlock PE, Gardner D (2016) Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction (Crown Publishing, New York).Google Scholar
• Van Der Bles AM, van der Linden S, Freeman AL, Spiegelhalter DJ (2020) The effects of communicating uncertainty on public trust in facts and numbers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 117(14):7672–7683.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wasserman L (2006) All of Nonparametric Statistics (Springer Science & Business Media, New York).Google Scholar
• Wolfers J, Zitzewitz E (2004) Prediction markets. J. Econom. Perspect. 18(2):107–126.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wyart V, De Gardelle V, Scholl J, Summerfield C (2012) Rhythmic fluctuations in evidence accumulation during decision making in the human brain. Neuron 76(4):847–858.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yates JF (1982) External correspondence: Decompositions of the mean probability score. Organ. Behav. Human Performance 30(1):132–156.Crossref, Google Scholar