IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/alstar/v106y2022i4d10.1007_s10182-021-00421-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scoring predictions at extreme quantiles

Author

Listed:
  • Axel Gandy

    (Imperial College London)

  • Kaushik Jana

    (Imperial College London)

  • Almut E. D. Veraart

    (Imperial College London)

Abstract

Prediction of quantiles at extreme tails is of interest in numerous applications. Extreme value modelling provides various competing predictors for this point prediction problem. A common method of assessment of a set of competing predictors is to evaluate their predictive performance in a given situation. However, due to the extreme nature of this inference problem, it can be possible that the predicted quantiles are not seen in the historical records, particularly when the sample size is small. This situation poses a problem to the validation of the prediction with its realization. In this article, we propose two non-parametric scoring approaches to assess extreme quantile prediction mechanisms. The proposed assessment methods are based on predicting a sequence of equally extreme quantiles on different parts of the data. We then use the quantile scoring function to evaluate the competing predictors. The performance of the scoring methods is compared with the conventional scoring method and the superiority of the former methods are demonstrated in a simulation study. The methods are then applied to analyze cyber Netflow data from Los Alamos National Laboratory and daily precipitation data at a station in California available from Global Historical Climatology Network.

Suggested Citation

  • Axel Gandy & Kaushik Jana & Almut E. D. Veraart, 2022. "Scoring predictions at extreme quantiles," AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, Springer;German Statistical Society, vol. 106(4), pages 527-544, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:alstar:v:106:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s10182-021-00421-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10182-021-00421-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10182-021-00421-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10182-021-00421-9?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gneiting, Tilmann, 2011. "Making and Evaluating Point Forecasts," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 106(494), pages 746-762.
    2. Huixia Judy Wang & Deyuan Li & Xuming He, 2012. "Estimation of High Conditional Quantiles for Heavy-Tailed Distributions," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 107(500), pages 1453-1464, December.
    3. Petra Friederichs & Thordis L. Thorarinsdottir, 2012. "Forecast verification for extreme value distributions with an application to probabilistic peak wind prediction," Environmetrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(7), pages 579-594, November.
    4. Koenker, Roger, 1984. "A note on L-estimates for linear models," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 2(6), pages 323-325, December.
    5. 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.
    6. Koenker, Roger, 2004. "Quantile regression for longitudinal data," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 74-89, October.
    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. Firpo, Sergio & Galvao, Antonio F. & Pinto, Cristine & Poirier, Alexandre & Sanroman, Graciela, 2022. "GMM quantile regression," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 230(2), pages 432-452.
    2. Sándor Baran & Patrícia Szokol & Marianna Szabó, 2021. "Truncated generalized extreme value distribution‐based ensemble model output statistics model for calibration of wind speed ensemble forecasts," Environmetrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(6), September.
    3. Jonas R. Brehmer & Tilmann Gneiting, 2020. "Properization: constructing proper scoring rules via Bayes acts," Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Springer;The Institute of Statistical Mathematics, vol. 72(3), pages 659-673, June.
    4. Kato, Kengo & F. Galvao, Antonio & Montes-Rojas, Gabriel V., 2012. "Asymptotics for panel quantile regression models with individual effects," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 170(1), pages 76-91.
    5. Inanoglu, Hulusi & Jacobs, Michael, Jr. & Liu, Junrong & Sickles, Robin, 2015. "Analyzing Bank Efficiency: Are "Too-Big-to-Fail" Banks Efficient?," Working Papers 15-016, Rice University, Department of Economics.
    6. Rafael Frongillo, 2022. "Quantum Information Elicitation," Papers 2203.07469, arXiv.org.
    7. Lahiri, Kajal & Yang, Liu, 2013. "Forecasting Binary Outcomes," Handbook of Economic Forecasting, in: G. Elliott & C. Granger & A. Timmermann (ed.), Handbook of Economic Forecasting, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1025-1106, Elsevier.
    8. Tobias Fissler & Silvana M. Pesenti, 2022. "Sensitivity Measures Based on Scoring Functions," Papers 2203.00460, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2022.
    9. Knüppel, Malte & Schultefrankenfeld, Guido, 2019. "Assessing the uncertainty in central banks’ inflation outlooks," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 1748-1769.
    10. Costa, Alexandre Bonnet R. & Ferreira, Pedro Cavalcanti G. & Gaglianone, Wagner P. & Guillén, Osmani Teixeira C. & Issler, João Victor & Lin, Yihao, 2021. "Machine learning and oil price point and density forecasting," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    11. Constandina Koki & Loukia Meligkotsidou & Ioannis Vrontos, 2020. "Forecasting under model uncertainty: Non‐homogeneous hidden Markov models with Pòlya‐Gamma data augmentation," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(4), pages 580-598, July.
    12. Yingying Hu & Huixia Judy Wang & Xuming He & Jianhua Guo, 2021. "Bayesian joint-quantile regression," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 2033-2053, September.
    13. Emilio Zanetti Chini, 2018. "Forecasters’ utility and forecast coherence," CREATES Research Papers 2018-23, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    14. Weronika Nitka & Rafał Weron, 2023. "Combining predictive distributions of electricity prices. Does minimizing the CRPS lead to optimal decisions in day-ahead bidding?," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 33(3), pages 105-118.
    15. Ravazzolo Francesco & Vahey Shaun P., 2014. "Forecast densities for economic aggregates from disaggregate ensembles," Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, De Gruyter, vol. 18(4), pages 1-15, September.
    16. Yang, Dazhi & van der Meer, Dennis, 2021. "Post-processing in solar forecasting: Ten overarching thinking tools," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    17. Yeliz Ekinci & Nicoleta Serban & Ekrem Duman, 2021. "Optimal ATM replenishment policies under demand uncertainty," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 999-1029, June.
    18. Knut Are Aastveit & Claudia Foroni & Francesco Ravazzolo, 2017. "Density Forecasts With Midas Models," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(4), pages 783-801, June.
    19. Matteo Iacopini & Francesco Ravazzolo & Luca Rossini, 2020. "Proper scoring rules for evaluating asymmetry in density forecasting," Papers 2006.11265, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2020.
    20. Micha{l} Narajewski & Florian Ziel, 2021. "Optimal bidding in hourly and quarter-hourly electricity price auctions: trading large volumes of power with market impact and transaction costs," Papers 2104.14204, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2022.

    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:spr:alstar:v:106:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s10182-021-00421-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.