Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Materials
Figure 2. GUI showing snapshot of MOLE process
The MOLE and direct estimation methods both asked
participants 10 questions regarding the values of 5 Procedure
commodities/shares at times 7 and 28 days following
testing. Two equivalent question sets were developed – Participants were tested in small groups (2-4) within their
labeled Gold and Silver after the first commodity included company offices over a period of approximately 1 month –
in each. Table 1 lists the commodities asked for in each. in each case. Which quiz a participant undertook under each
It is important to note that this design, with testing across elicitation method was determined randomly. That is,
an extended period and yet with all participants making approximately half of participants completed the Gold quiz
forecasts across the same duration, results in individual using the MOLE and Silver using the standard elicitation,
results being dependent on the volatility of the parameters while the remainder did the reverse. Which of the methods
across that period. That is, participants using the same was delivered first was also randomized. The specific
starting value on different days and making the same range procedure used within each method is described below.
estimate may end up with different calibration scores as a
result of the true value on the target days differing. A period Standard Elicitation Procedure
of low volatility could, thus, mask poor calibration. Under the standard elicitation condition, participants were
For the US participants, the quiz questions were coded asked to give ranges they were certain would contain the
true value of the parameters of interest at the specified time.
That is, they were asked for their minimum and maximum each parameter) with the range that remained at the end
values. (This was done in preference to the more common recorded as the participant’s final range estimate. As noted
80 or 90% confidence intervals to ensure comparability with in previous versions of this task (Welsh, et al., 2008, 2009),
the MOLE, which generates 100% confidence intervals.) it is possible to use MOLE results to generate a full
These were either recorded on a paper copy of the quiz or distribution and calculate a best estimate from a
entered directly into the GUI. Prior to testing, participants participant’s responses. Given the use of a simple range
were asked to record the current value of the parameter of elicitation as the comparison condition, however, this was
interest – to ensure that they had some idea of what the true not done here – avoiding concerns about the assumptions
value was and thus better reflect real forecasting tasks where used to generate a best estimate from the raw data.
people forecast values that they are familiar with. Participants were not made aware of the underlying
It was decided not to ask participants for a best guess as MOLE algorithm, ensuring that any attempts to ‘game the
this affects the width of elicited ranges in complex ways system’ would be made blind.
(see, e.g., Block & Harper, 1991; Heywood-Smith, Welsh,
& Begg, 2008), including a suggestion that it affects ranges Table 2. Initial bounds for MOLE process.
differentially according to a person’s level of expertise in a US UK
subject (Bruza, Welsh, Navarro, & Begg, 2011). Q. Gold Silver Gold Silver
1 ±5% ±5% ±10% ±10%
MOLE Procedure 2 ±10% ±10% ±10% ±10%
The MOLE required the elicitor to set initial bounds on the 3 30-110F 30-110F -20-40C -20-40C
range of values that the computer uses – based on 4 30-100F 30-110F -20-40C -20-40C
extrapolations of historical data or natural limits (where 5 0-7 in. 0-60 mph 0-100mm 0-90kmph
available). The bounds used for the different quiz questions 6 0-20 in. 0-60 mph 0-200mm 0-90kmph
are shown in Table 2. Note that some were based on the 7 ±5% ±5% ±5% ±5%
parameter’s current value while others were based on
8 ±10% ±10% ±10% ±10%
historical data. In both cases, however, the participant was
9 ±5% ±10% ±5% ±10%
tasked with entering the current value into the MOLE GUI
10 ±10% ±20% ±10% ±20%
immediately prior to the elicitation beginning. In this way,
participants were assured of knowing something about the Note: where a ±% value is indicated, the bounds were
calculated from the current value of the parameter. Note 2:
parameter in question.
the UK 7-day bounds are, in places, wider than their US
For each parameter elicitation, the program randomly
selected two values from the uniform distribution delimited equivalents for reasons detailed below.
by these bounds and presented both to the participant,
asking which was closer to the true value. The participant Results
then rated their confidence in their choice on a scale from On Bounds
guessing to very high1 (as seen in Figure 1). The US sample was collected several months before the UK
This confidence rating was used by the MOLE to sample and, as such, observations from this were used to
determine whether the range of values being considered update our process for determining bounds. Specifically, it
should be truncated. Specifically, if the participant selected was observed that the bounds used for the Silver price
an option with maximum confidence, the MOLE ruled out underestimated the volatility in the market – preventing a
any values lying closer to the non-selected option. That is, it number of participants from being able to capture the true
truncated the range at the midpoint of the two current values value in their final ranges, no matter what choices they
and selected future values only from the remaining range. made during the MOLE. In light of this, the ranges used for
Any confidence level below the maximum resulted in no the UK sample were widened on this question and analyses
truncation of the range – the interpretation being that lower exclude this question from the US.
confidence ratings indicated a person still believed it Otherwise, the differences in bounds reflect differences in
possible that the alternate value could lie closer to the truth. expected weather for the participants’ local areas and
Following this, the MOLE selected a new pair of values changes of units from metric to imperial where appropriate.
from the (possibly truncated) range and presented these for
the participant to choose between – as detailed above. Equivalency of Quizzes
The MOLE iterated through his process 10 times (for
Apart from the effect noted above for the silver question, the
US sample’s performance on the questions from the Gold
1
This scale was mapped over the top of the 50% - 100% and Silver quizzes was statistically equivalent. Calibration
confidence scale used in previous versions of the MOLE – as a on the ‘Gold’ and ‘Silver’ question sets was compared for
result of discussions with the companies providing participants. both 7 day and 28 forecasts using Welch’s t-tests. These
While this, necessarily, reduces our ability to interpret results, it showed no difference between people’s performance on the
should be noted that the effect of this can only be to narrow ranges
two sets of questions, M = 82.8 and 84.0, t(228) = 0.42, p =
when the numerical scale might otherwise leave it intact. Thus, this
change can only hinder the MOLE.
0.674 on the 7 day forecasts and M = 84.0 and 85.7, t(228)
= 0.58, p = 0.566 on the 28 day forecasts. the MOLE and direct estimation was 17% on the 7 day
The UK sample is slightly more complex in that, while forecast and 27% at 28 days. Paired sample t-tests
there is no observed difference between participants’ comparing mean calibration at each forecast length
performance on the Gold and Silver quizzes under the confirmed these differences were significant, t(42) = 4.3 and
MOLE, there is one using the standard elicitation method, 5.9, p = 1.06x10-4 and p = 5.97x10-7, A = 0.734 and 0.779.
with the average calibration being 20% lower on the Gold
quiz. On examination of the data, it was noted that, during
1
the period of testing for the UK sample, the parameters on
the Gold quiz happened to be markedly more variable than