Visual Risk Specification and Aggregation

Comments, Follow-up work, Updates and Corrections

As much as software gets patched and updated from time to time, papers and theories develop and undergo an evolution, extensions and occasionally also corrections. As a big fan of scientific ethics and the Honkong principles on research integrity, I list hereafter changes, updates and corrections that I either find myself or get told by others (which I also appreciate and acknowledge).

Errare humanum est, and may anyone cast the first stone, who is without sin. This is what escaped my eyes, as well as those of my collaborators and also the hard-working people doing scientific peer reviews:

  • In section II, the user inputs were modeled as Gaussian variables, whose variance should be \(\frac 1 3\big(\frac{i_{\max}-i_{\min}}2)\), resp. \(\frac 1 3\big(\frac{\ell_{\max}-\ell_{\min}}2)\), so it should read \( X_I \sim \mathcal{N}\left(\frac 1 2(i_{\max}+i_{\min}), \frac 1 3\big(\frac{i_{\max}-i_{\min}}2)\right) \) and \( X_L \sim \mathcal{N}\left(\frac 1 2(\ell_{\max}+\ell_{\min}), \frac 1 3\big(\frac{\ell_{\max}-\ell_{\min}}2)\right) \) on page 2 of the paper. The same correction is also necessary in Section III.A in the opinion pooling method, with the implied changes to the pictures illustrating the method by examples. The error is only in the numbers, not in the concept, however.