Comparing Efficiency of Expert Data Aggregation Methods
This work addresses a methodological challenge in expert estimation for domains lacking benchmark data, but it is incremental as it compares modifications of existing combinatorial methods.
The paper tackles the problem of evaluating the efficiency of expert data aggregation methods by proposing stability under data perturbations as a metric, and finds that a weighted spanning tree enumeration method yields more stable results than non-weighted and other baseline methods.
Expert estimation of objects takes place when there are no benchmark values of object weights, but these weights still have to be defined. That is why it is problematic to define the efficiency of expert estimation methods. We propose to define efficiency of such methods based on stability of their results under perturbations of input data. We compare two modifications of combinatorial method of expert data aggregation (spanning tree enumeration). Using the example of these two methods, we illustrate two approaches to efficiency evaluation. The first approach is based on usage of real data, obtained through estimation of a set of model objects by a group of experts. The second approach is based on simulation of the whole expert examination cycle (including expert estimates). During evaluation of efficiency of the two listed modifications of combinatorial expert data aggregation method the simulation-based approach proved more robust and credible. Our experimental study confirms that if weights of spanning trees are taken into consideration, the results of combinatorial data aggregation method become more stable. So, weighted spanning tree enumeration method has an advantage over non-weighted method (and, consequently, over logarithmic least squares and row geometric mean methods).