Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Barbara A. Mellers

dblp:91/6699 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
0000-0001-9869-5880ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 3 · 1 since 2021Theory of computation · 2 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design · 100%
Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
2 papers
Computational social science and digital humanities · 100%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Recommender systems · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
forecasting
0.612022
Crowd Prediction Systems: Markets, Polls, and Elite Forecasters · EC 2022
Computational social science and digital humanities
forecasting
0.412020
Small Steps to Accuracy: Incremental Belief Updaters Are Better Forecasters · EC 2020
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
prediction markets
0.212022
Crowd Prediction Systems: Markets, Polls, and Elite Forecasters · EC 2022

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

feature-based prediction · 0.6statistical analysis · 0.4dynamic programming · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 Crowd Prediction Systems: Markets, Polls, and Elite Forecasters
abstract
No abstract available.
Pavel Atanasov, Jens Witkowski, Barbara A. Mellers, Philip Tetlock
EC3
2020 Small Steps to Accuracy: Incremental Belief Updaters Are Better Forecasters
abstract
Laboratory research has shown that both underreaction and overreaction to new information pose threats to forecasting accuracy. This article explores how real-world forecasters who vary in skill attempt to balance these threats. We distinguish among three aspects of updating: frequency, magnitude, and confirmation propensity. Drawing on data from a four-year forecasting tournament that elicited over 400,000 probabilistic predictions on almost 500 geopolitical questions, we found that the most accurate forecasters made frequent, small updates, while low-skill forecasters were prone to confirm initial judgments or make infrequent, large revisions. High-frequency updaters scored higher on crystallized intelligence and open-mindedness, accessed more information, and improved over time. Small-increment updaters had higher fluid intelligence scores, and derived their advantage from initial forecasts. Update magnitude mediated the causal effect of training on accuracy. Frequent, small revisions provided reliable and valid signals of skill. These updating patterns can help organizations identify talent for managing uncertain prospects.
Pavel Atanasov, Jens Witkowski, Lyle H. Ungar, Barbara A. Mellers, Philip Tetlock
EC4
2017 Assessing Objective Recommendation Quality through Political Forecasting
abstract
Recommendations are often rated for their subjective quality, but few researchers have studied quality in terms of objective utility.We explore quality assessment with respect to both subjective (i.e.users' ratings) and objective (i.e., did it influence?did it improve decisions?)metrics in a massive online geopolitical forecasting system, ultimately comparing linguistic characteristics of each quality metric.Using a variety of features, we predict all types of quality with better accuracy than the simple yet strong baseline of recommendation length.For example, more complex sentence constructions, as evidenced by subordinate conjunctions, are characteristic of recommendations leading to objective improvements in forecasting.Our analyses also reveal rater biases; for example, forecasters are subjectively biased in favor of recommendations mentioning business deals and material things, even though such recommendations do not indeed prove any more useful objectively.
H. Andrew Schwartz, Masoud Rouhizadeh, Michael Bishop, Philip Tetlock, Barbara A. Mellers, Lyle H. Ungar
EMNLP5