Economic Interpretation of Probabilities Estimated by Maximum Likelihood or Score
The conventional method of estimating a probability prediction model by maximum likelihood (MLE) is a form of maximum score estimation with economic meaning. Of all the probabilities that a given model might have produced, those obtained by MLE yield maximum in-sample betting return to a log utility investor. Recognition of this affinity between MLE and log utility begs the wider methodological question of whether different decision makers benefit in different degrees from different probabilities. Probabilities produced by MLE can be either too conservative or too bold relative to those found by maximizing utility under more risk-tolerant or risk-averse score functions. A very (not very) risk-averse user, who bets characteristically small (large) fractions of wealth based on a conservative forecast, is bound to make a rapidly (slowly) increasing bet as the forecast probability becomes progressively bolder or more distant from the market probability. The effect of this interaction between risk aversion and forecast is that a highly risk-averse user may need a much bolder forecast to obtain the same certainty equivalent as a more risk-tolerant investor. It follows more broadly that professional forecasters should anticipate how a client with given risk aversion expects to gain from any given forecast, or forecast revision, before committing resources toward making a better informed (but still honest) forecast. This paper was accepted by Peter Wakker, decision analysis.
Volume (Year): 57 (2011)
Issue (Month): 2 (February)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 7240 Parkway Drive, Suite 300, Hanover, MD 21076 USA|
Web page: http://www.informs.org/
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Nolan Miller & Paul Resnick & Richard Zeckhauser, 2005. "Eliciting Informative Feedback: The Peer-Prediction Method," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(9), pages 1359-1373, September.
- repec:kap:expeco:v:1:y:1998:i:1:p:43-62 is not listed on IDEAS
- Selten, Reinhard, 1996.
"Axiomatic Characterization of the Quadratic Scoring Rule,"
Discussion Paper Serie B
390, University of Bonn, Germany.
- Reinhard Selten, 1998. "Axiomatic Characterization of the Quadratic Scoring Rule," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 43-61, June.
- 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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:57:y:2011:i:2:p:308-314. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.