IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ordeca/v4y2007i2p49-65.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Some Comparisons among Quadratic, Spherical, and Logarithmic Scoring Rules

Author

Listed:
  • J. Eric Bickel

    (Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Texas A&M University, 236-B Zachry Engineering Center, 3131 TAMU, College Station, Texas 77843-3131)

Abstract

Strictly proper scoring rules continue to play an important role in probability assessment. Although many such rules have been developed, relatively little guidance exists as to which rule is the most appropriate. In this paper, we discuss two important properties of quadratic, spherical, and logarithmic scoring rules. From an ex post perspective, we compare their rank order properties and conclude that both quadratic and spherical scoring perform poorly in this regard, relative to logarithmic. Second, from an ex ante perspective, we demonstrate that in many situations, logarithmic scoring is the method least affected by a nonlinear utility function. These results suggest that logarithmic scoring is superior when rank order results are important and/or when the assessor has a nonlinear utility function. In addition to these results, and perhaps more important, we demonstrate that nonlinear utility induces relatively little deviation from the optimal assessment under an assumption of risk neutrality. These results provide both comfort and guidance to those who would like to use scoring rules as part of the assessment process.

Suggested Citation

  • J. Eric Bickel, 2007. "Some Comparisons among Quadratic, Spherical, and Logarithmic Scoring Rules," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 4(2), pages 49-65, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ordeca:v:4:y:2007:i:2:p:49-65
    DOI: 10.1287/deca.1070.0089
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/deca.1070.0089
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/deca.1070.0089?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. Kenneth C. Lichtendahl, Jr. & Robert L. Winkler, 2007. "Probability Elicitation, Scoring Rules, and Competition Among Forecasters," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(11), pages 1745-1755, November.
    2. Daniel Friedman, 1983. "Effective Scoring Rules for Probabilistic Forecasts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(4), pages 447-454, April.
    3. Daniel Friedman, 1979. "An Effective Scoring Rule for Probability Distibutions," UCLA Economics Working Papers 164, UCLA Department of Economics.
    4. Emir Shuford & Arthur Albert & H. Edward Massengill, 1966. "Admissible probability measurement procedures," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 31(2), pages 125-145, June.
    5. 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.
    6. Robert F. Nau, 1985. "Should Scoring Rules be "Effective"?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(5), pages 527-535, May.
    7. Reinhard Selten, 1998. "Axiomatic Characterization of the Quadratic Scoring Rule," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 43-61, June.
    8. Craig W. Kirkwood, 2004. "Approximating Risk Aversion in Decision Analysis Applications," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(1), pages 51-67, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Nolan Miller & Paul Resnick & Richard Zeckhauser, 2005. "Eliciting Informative Feedback: The Peer-Prediction Method," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(9), pages 1359-1373, September.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Victor Jose, 2009. "A Characterization for the Spherical Scoring Rule," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 66(3), pages 263-281, March.
    7. David J. Johnstone, 2007. "The Parimutuel Kelly Probability Scoring Rule," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 4(2), pages 66-75, June.
    8. J. Eric Bickel, 2010. "Scoring Rules and Decision Analysis Education," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(4), pages 346-357, December.
    9. Papakonstantinou, A. & Bogetoft, P., 2013. "Crowd-sourcing with uncertain quality - an auction approach," MPRA Paper 44236, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Plott, Charles R. & Salmon, Timothy C., 2004. "The simultaneous, ascending auction: dynamics of price adjustment in experiments and in the UK3G spectrum auction," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 353-383, March.
    11. Radosveta Ivanova-Stenzel & Timothy C. Salmon, 2004. "Bidder Preferences among Auction Institutions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 42(2), pages 223-236, April.
    12. 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.
    13. Laurent L. Pauwels & Andrey L. Vasnev, 2017. "Forecast combination for discrete choice models: predicting FOMC monetary policy decisions," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 229-254, February.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Gneiting, Tilmann, 2011. "Quantiles as optimal point forecasts," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 197-207, April.
    17. Eva Regnier, 2018. "Probability Forecasts Made at Multiple Lead Times," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 2407-2426, May.
    18. Leonard Smith & Emma Suckling & Erica Thompson & Trevor Maynard & Hailiang Du, 2015. "Towards improving the framework for probabilistic forecast evaluation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 132(1), pages 31-45, September.
    19. Rakesh K. Sarin, 2013. "From the Editor ---Median Aggregation, Scoring Rules, Expert Forecasts, Choices with Binary Attributes, Portfolio with Dependent Projects, and Information Security," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 277-278, December.
    20. Joseph R. Radzevick & Don A. Moore, 2011. "Competing to Be Certain (But Wrong): Market Dynamics and Excessive Confidence in Judgment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(1), pages 93-106, January.

    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:4:y:2007:i:2:p:49-65. 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.