Equal Versus Differential Weighting in Combining Forecasts

R. L. Winkler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12302

2015-01-01

Risk Analysis

Abstract:In decision analysis and risk analysis, the best (sometimes the only) source of information regarding some variables of interest is often expert judgment. Since multiple experts can bring more information to the table than just a single expert, there is considerable interest in combining the judgments of multiple experts. This has led to an extensive interdisciplinary literature on the combination of forecasts, considering both point forecasts and probability forecasts. Contributors to the literature include scholars from statistics, decision theory/decision analysis, management science, psychology, economics, and areas of application as well as practitioners. The article by Bolger and Rowe considers the important question of whether the experts should be treated symmetrically in such aggregation. The most commonly used mathematical aggregation approaches use some sort of weighted average of the experts’ forecasts. For example, the linear opinion pool is a weighted average of the forecasts, and the logarithmic opinion pool can be expressed as a weighted average of the logarithms of the forecasts. Weighted averages can also be generated from other approaches, such as Bayesian models or regression models. With a weighted average, the question of treating the experts equally or not boils down to whether to use equal weights or to allow different weights for different experts. Bolger and Rowe argue “that no significant benefits are likely to accrue from unequal weighting in mathematical aggregation,” specifically targeting Cooke’s classical method.(1) Having worked in the area of combining forecasts for over four decades, I initially thought unequal weighting was a good idea (perhaps because of my statistics upbringing) but gradually saw problems with it. Thus,