IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ordeca/v10y2013i4p292-304.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choosing a Strictly Proper Scoring Rule

Author

Listed:
  • Edgar C. Merkle

    (Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211)

  • Mark Steyvers

    (Department of Cognitive Sciences, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California 92697)

Abstract

Strictly proper scoring rules, including the Brier score and the logarithmic score, are standard metrics by which probability forecasters are assessed and compared. Researchers often find that one's choice of strictly proper scoring rule has minimal impact on one's conclusions, but this conclusion is typically drawn from a small set of popular rules. In the context of forecasting world events, we use a recently proposed family of proper scoring rules to study the properties of a wide variety of strictly proper rules. The results indicate that conclusions vary greatly across different scoring rules, so that one's choice of scoring rule should be informed by the forecasting domain. We then describe strategies for choosing a scoring rule that meets the needs of the forecast consumer, considering three unique families of proper scoring rules.

Suggested Citation

  • Edgar C. Merkle & Mark Steyvers, 2013. "Choosing a Strictly Proper Scoring Rule," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 292-304, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ordeca:v:10:y:2013:i:4:p:292-304
    DOI: 10.1287/deca.2013.0280
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/deca.2013.0280
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/deca.2013.0280?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. D. J. Johnstone, 2011. "Economic Interpretation of Probabilities Estimated by Maximum Likelihood or Score," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(2), pages 308-314, February.
    2. Victor Richmond R. Jose & Robert F. Nau & Robert L. Winkler, 2008. "Scoring Rules, Generalized Entropy, and Utility Maximization," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 1146-1157, October.
    3. Hand D.J. & Vinciotti V., 2003. "Local Versus Global Models for Classification Problems: Fitting Models Where it Matters," The American Statistician, American Statistical Association, vol. 57, pages 124-131, May.
    4. David J. Johnstone, 2007. "The Parimutuel Kelly Probability Scoring Rule," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 4(2), pages 66-75, June.
    5. Victor Richmond R. Jose & Robert F. Nau & Robert L. Winkler, 2009. "Sensitivity to Distance and Baseline Distributions in Forecast Evaluation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(4), pages 582-590, April.
    6. R. Winkler & Javier Muñoz & José Cervera & José Bernardo & Gail Blattenberger & Joseph Kadane & Dennis Lindley & Allan Murphy & Robert Oliver & David Ríos-Insua, 1996. "Scoring rules and the evaluation of probabilities," TEST: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 5(1), pages 1-60, June.
    7. Gneiting, Tilmann & Raftery, Adrian E., 2007. "Strictly Proper Scoring Rules, Prediction, and Estimation," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 102, pages 359-378, March.
    8. J. Eric Bickel, 2007. "Some Comparisons among Quadratic, Spherical, and Logarithmic Scoring Rules," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 4(2), pages 49-65, June.
    9. Reinhard Selten, 1998. "Axiomatic Characterization of the Quadratic Scoring Rule," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 43-61, June.
    10. David J. Johnstone & Victor Richmond R. Jose & Robert L. Winkler, 2011. "Tailored Scoring Rules for Probabilities," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 256-268, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Di, Chen & Dimitrov, Stanko & He, Qi-Ming, 2019. "Incentive compatibility in prediction markets: Costly actions and external incentives," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 351-370.
    2. Petropoulos, Fotios & Apiletti, Daniele & Assimakopoulos, Vassilios & Babai, Mohamed Zied & Barrow, Devon K. & Ben Taieb, Souhaib & Bergmeir, Christoph & Bessa, Ricardo J. & Bijak, Jakub & Boylan, Joh, 2022. "Forecasting: theory and practice," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 705-871.
      • Fotios Petropoulos & Daniele Apiletti & Vassilios Assimakopoulos & Mohamed Zied Babai & Devon K. Barrow & Souhaib Ben Taieb & Christoph Bergmeir & Ricardo J. Bessa & Jakub Bijak & John E. Boylan & Jet, 2020. "Forecasting: theory and practice," Papers 2012.03854, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2022.
    3. Brathwaite, Timothy & Walker, Joan L., 2018. "Asymmetric, closed-form, finite-parameter models of multinomial choice," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 78-112.
    4. Karvetski, Christopher W. & Meinel, Carolyn & Maxwell, Daniel T. & Lu, Yunzi & Mellers, Barbara A. & Tetlock, Philip E., 2022. "What do forecasting rationales reveal about thinking patterns of top geopolitical forecasters?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 688-704.
    5. Werner Ehm & Tilmann Gneiting & Alexander Jordan & Fabian Krüger, 2016. "Of quantiles and expectiles: consistent scoring functions, Choquet representations and forecast rankings," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 78(3), pages 505-562, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David J. Johnstone & Victor Richmond R. Jose & Robert L. Winkler, 2011. "Tailored Scoring Rules for Probabilities," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 256-268, December.
    2. Andrew Grant & David Johnstone & Oh Kang Kwon, 2019. "A Probability Scoring Rule for Simultaneous Events," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 301-313, December.
    3. Petropoulos, Fotios & Apiletti, Daniele & Assimakopoulos, Vassilios & Babai, Mohamed Zied & Barrow, Devon K. & Ben Taieb, Souhaib & Bergmeir, Christoph & Bessa, Ricardo J. & Bijak, Jakub & Boylan, Joh, 2022. "Forecasting: theory and practice," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 705-871.
      • Fotios Petropoulos & Daniele Apiletti & Vassilios Assimakopoulos & Mohamed Zied Babai & Devon K. Barrow & Souhaib Ben Taieb & Christoph Bergmeir & Ricardo J. Bessa & Jakub Bijak & John E. Boylan & Jet, 2020. "Forecasting: theory and practice," Papers 2012.03854, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2022.
    4. D. J. Johnstone & S. Jones & V. R. R. Jose & M. Peat, 2013. "Measures of the economic value of probabilities of bankruptcy," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 176(3), pages 635-653, June.
    5. David Johnstone & Stewart Jones & Oliver Jones & Steve Tulig, 2021. "Scoring Probability Forecasts by a User’s Bets Against a Market Consensus," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 169-184, September.
    6. Victor Richmond R. Jose & Robert F. Nau & Robert L. Winkler, 2008. "Scoring Rules, Generalized Entropy, and Utility Maximization," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 1146-1157, October.
    7. Eva Regnier, 2018. "Probability Forecasts Made at Multiple Lead Times," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 2407-2426, May.
    8. Carol Alexander & Michael Coulon & Yang Han & Xiaochun Meng, 2021. "Evaluating the Discrimination Ability of Proper Multivariate Scoring Rules," Papers 2101.12693, arXiv.org.
    9. Chambers, Christopher P. & Healy, Paul J. & Lambert, Nicolas S., 2019. "Proper scoring rules with general preferences: A dual characterization of optimal reports," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 322-341.
    10. Robert L. Winkler & Yael Grushka-Cockayne & Kenneth C. Lichtendahl Jr. & Victor Richmond R. Jose, 2019. "Probability Forecasts and Their Combination: A Research Perspective," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 239-260, December.
    11. D. J. Johnstone, 2011. "Economic Interpretation of Probabilities Estimated by Maximum Likelihood or Score," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(2), pages 308-314, February.
    12. Lambert, Nicolas S. & Langford, John & Wortman Vaughan, Jennifer & Chen, Yiling & Reeves, Daniel M. & Shoham, Yoav & Pennock, David M., 2015. "An axiomatic characterization of wagering mechanisms," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 389-416.
    13. Zachary J. Smith & J. Eric Bickel, 2020. "Additive Scoring Rules for Discrete Sample Spaces," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 115-133, June.
    14. Wheatcroft Edward, 2021. "Evaluating probabilistic forecasts of football matches: the case against the ranked probability score," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, De Gruyter, vol. 17(4), pages 273-287, December.
    15. David Kaplan & Chansoon Lee, 2018. "Optimizing Prediction Using Bayesian Model Averaging: Examples Using Large-Scale Educational Assessments," Evaluation Review, , vol. 42(4), pages 423-457, August.
    16. Yael Grushka-Cockayne & Kenneth C. Lichtendahl Jr. & Victor Richmond R. Jose & Robert L. Winkler, 2017. "Quantile Evaluation, Sensitivity to Bracketing, and Sharing Business Payoffs," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 712-728, June.
    17. Karl Schlag & James Tremewan & Joël Weele, 2015. "A penny for your thoughts: a survey of methods for eliciting beliefs," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(3), pages 457-490, September.
    18. L. Robin Keller & Ali Abbas & J. Eric Bickel & Vicki M. Bier & David V. Budescu & John C. Butler & Philippe Delquié & Kenneth C. Lichtendahl & Jason R. W. Merrick & Ahti Salo & George Wu, 2011. "From the Editors ---Probability Scoring Rules, Ambiguity, Multiattribute Terrorist Utility, and Sensitivity Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 251-255, December.
    19. P. Schanbacher, 2014. "Measuring and adjusting for overconfidence," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 37(2), pages 423-452, October.
    20. Borgonovo, Emanuele & Hazen, Gordon B. & Jose, Victor Richmond R. & Plischke, Elmar, 2021. "Probabilistic sensitivity measures as information value," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 289(2), pages 595-610.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ordeca:v:10:y:2013:i:4:p:292-304. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.