4.5 Article

Forecaster's Dilemma: Extreme Events and Forecast Evaluation

Journal

STATISTICAL SCIENCE
Volume 32, Issue 1, Pages 106-127

Publisher

INST MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS
DOI: 10.1214/16-STS588

Keywords

Diebold-Mariano test; hindsight bias; likelihood ratio test; Neyman-Pearson lemma; predictive performance; probabilistic forecast; proper weighted scoring rule; rare and extreme events

Funding

  1. Volkswagen Foundation through the project 'Mesoscale Weather Extremes - Theory, Spatial Modeling and Prediction (WEX-MOP)'
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  3. Klaus Tschira Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In public discussions of the quality of forecasts, attention typically focuses on the predictive performance in cases of extreme events. However, the restriction of conventional forecast evaluation methods to subsets of extreme observations has unexpected and undesired effects, and is bound to discredit skillful forecasts when the signal-to-noise ratio in the data generating process is low. Conditioning on outcomes is incompatible with the theoretical assumptions of established forecast evaluation methods, thereby confronting forecasters with what we refer to as the forecaster's dilemma. For probabilistic forecasts, proper weighted scoring rules have been proposed as decision-theoretically justifiable alternatives for forecast evaluation with an emphasis on extreme events. Using theoretical arguments, simulation experiments and a real data study on probabilistic forecasts of U.S. inflation and gross domestic product (GDP) growth, we illustrate and discuss the forecaster's dilemma along with potential remedies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available