Improving Probability Judgment in Intelligence Analysis: From Structured Analysis to Statistical Aggregation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As in other areas of expert judgment, intelligence analysis often requires judging the probability that hypotheses are true. Intelligence organizations promote the use of structured methods such as “Analysis of Competing Hypotheses” (ACH) to improve judgment accuracy and analytic rigor, but these methods have received little empirical testing. In this experiment, we pitted ACHagainst a factorized Bayes theorem (FBT) method, and we examined the value of recalibration (coherentization) and aggregation methods for improving the accuracy of probability judgment. Analytic techniques such as ACH and FBT were ineffective in improving accuracy and handling correlated evidence, and ACH in fact decreased the coherence of probability judgments. In contrast, statistical post-analytic methods (i.e., coherentization and aggregation) yielded large accuracy gains. A wide range of methods for instantiating these techniques were tested. The interactions among the factors considered suggest that prescriptive theorists and interventionists should examine the value of ensembles of judgment-support methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.065 | 0.289 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".