Abstract:Purpose - In forecasting unknown quantities, risk and finance decision makers often rely on one or more biased experts, statistical specialists representing parties with an interest in the decision maker's final forecast. This problem arises in a variety of contexts, and the decision maker may represent a corporate enterprise, rating agency, government regulator, etc. The purpose of the paper is to assist decision makers, experts, and others to have a better understanding of the dynamics of the problem, and to adopt strategies and practices that enhance efficiency.Design/methodology/approach - The problem is formulated as a two-person, non-cooperative Bayesian game with the decision maker and one expert as players, and perfect Bayesian equilibrium solutions are identified. Then the analysis is extended to variations of the game in which the expert's loss function is not common knowledge, and in which there are multiple experts.Findings - In the struggle for information between the decision maker and the experts, the experts generally benefit from greater uncertainty about the parameters of the model. Thus, in attempting to elicit as much information as possible from the experts, the decision maker must strive to minimize all sources of uncertainty.Research limitations/implications - As in most Bayesian games, the analysis requires that a variety of process assumptions and model parameters be common knowledge. These conditions may be difficult to satisfy in real-world applications.Practical implications - The principal finding of the study is that there is truly a struggle for information between the decision maker and the experts. This generally encourages the experts to inject as much uncertainty as possible into the process. To counter this effect, the decision maker might: provide incentives for the experts to increase their sampling information; try to mitigate specific uncertainties regarding the model parameters; and try to increase the number of experts.Originality/value - This is the first paper to apply the framework of signaling games to the problem of eliciting information from biased experts. It is of value to decision makers, experts, and economic researchers.

Using the Data Agreement Criterion to Rank Experts' Beliefs

An Improved Belief Entropy and Its Application in Decision-Making

Reconciliation of expert priors for quantities and events and application within the probabilistic Delphi method

Ranking basic belief assignments in decision making under uncertain environment

Elicitation of Rank Correlations with Probabilities of Concordance: Method and Application to Building Management

The Value of Performance Weights and Discussion in Aggregated Expert Judgments

Inverse Reinforcement Learning with Multiple Ranked Experts

Forecasts From Biased Experts: A "Meta-Credibility" Problem

Using Clinical Experts Beliefs to Compare Survival Models in Health Technology Assessment

Inference on Consensus Ranking of Distributions

Unsupervised Opinion Aggregation -- A Statistical Perspective

Level-strategyproof Belief Aggregation Mechanisms

Bayesian Aggregation of Order-Based Rank Data

Effective signal reconstruction from multiple ranked lists via convex optimization

Bayesian inferences on uncertain ranks and orderings: Application to ranking players and lineups

Combining belief functions when evidence conflicts

A trust induced recommendation mechanism for reaching consensus in group decision making

Using Experts' Opinions in Machine Learning Tasks

Debate Helps Supervise Unreliable Experts

On the Biased Assessment of Expert Finding Systems

Managing uncertainty of expert's assessment in FMEA with the belief divergence measure