首页> 外文期刊>Theory and Decision >In search of good probability assessors: an experimental comparison of elicitation rules for confidence judgments
【24h】

In search of good probability assessors: an experimental comparison of elicitation rules for confidence judgments

机译:寻找好的概率评估者:对置信判断的启发规则的实验比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

In this paper, we use an experimental design to compare the performance of elicitation rules for subjective beliefs. Contrary to previous works in which elicited beliefs are compared to an objective benchmark, we consider a purely subjective belief framework (confidence in one's own performance in a cognitive task and a perceptual task). The performance of different elicitation rules is assessed according to the accuracy of stated beliefs in predicting success. We measure this accuracy using two main factors: calibration and discrimination. For each of them, we propose two statistical indexes and we compare the rules' performances for each measurement. The matching probability method provides more accurate beliefs in terms of discrimination, while the quadratic scoring rule reduces overconfidence and the free rule, a simple rule with no incentives, which succeeds in eliciting accurate beliefs. Nevertheless, the matching probability appears to be the best mechanism for eliciting beliefs due to its performances in terms of calibration and discrimination, but also its ability to elicit consistent beliefs across measures and across tasks, as well as its empirical and theoretical properties.
机译:在本文中,我们使用实验设计来比较主观信念的启发规则的性能。与先前的将引诱的信念与客观基准进行比较的工作相反,我们认为纯粹是主观的信念框架(对自己在认知任务和知觉任务中的表现的信心)。根据陈述的信念在预测成功中的准确性来评估不同启发规则的性能。我们使用两个主要因素来测量此准确性:校准和辨别力。对于它们中的每一个,我们提出两个统计指标,并比较每次测量的规则性能。匹配概率方法在区分方面提供了更准确的信念,而二次得分规则减少了过度自信,而自由规则是一种没有激励的简单规则,可以成功地得出准确的信念。但是,由于匹配概率在校准和区分方面的表现,因此它似乎是引发信念的最佳机制,而且在各种度量和任务之间以及其经验和理论特性方面,也具有引起一致信念的能力。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号