IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/biomet/v109y2022i3p647-663..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valid sequential inference on probability forecast performance
[A comparison of the ECMWF, MSC, and NCEP global ensemble prediction systems]

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander Henzi
  • Johanna F Ziegel

Abstract

SummaryProbability forecasts for binary events play a central role in many applications. Their quality is commonly assessed with proper scoring rules, which assign forecasts numerical scores such that a correct forecast achieves a minimal expected score. In this paper, we construct e-values for testing the statistical significance of score differences of competing forecasts in sequential settings. E-values have been proposed as an alternative to -values for hypothesis testing, and they can easily be transformed into conservative -values by taking the multiplicative inverse. The e-values proposed in this article are valid in finite samples without any assumptions on the data-generating processes. They also allow optional stopping, so a forecast user may decide to interrupt evaluation, taking into account the available data at any time, and still draw statistically valid inference, which is generally not true for classical -value-based tests. In a case study on post-processing of precipitation forecasts, state-of-the-art forecast dominance tests and e-values lead to the same conclusions.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander Henzi & Johanna F Ziegel, 2022. "Valid sequential inference on probability forecast performance [A comparison of the ECMWF, MSC, and NCEP global ensemble prediction systems]," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 109(3), pages 647-663.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:biomet:v:109:y:2022:i:3:p:647-663.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/biomet/asab047
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. Raffaella Giacomini & Halbert White, 2006. "Tests of Conditional Predictive Ability," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(6), pages 1545-1578, November.
    3. 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.
    4. Diebold, Francis X & Mariano, Roberto S, 2002. "Comparing Predictive Accuracy," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 20(1), pages 134-144, January.
    5. Alexander Henzi & Johanna F. Ziegel & Tilmann Gneiting, 2021. "Isotonic distributional regression," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 83(5), pages 963-993, November.
    6. Andrew J. Patton, 2020. "Comparing Possibly Misspecified Forecasts," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(4), pages 796-809, October.
    7. Eben Lazarus & Daniel J. Lewis & James H. Stock & Mark W. Watson, 2018. "HAR Inference: Recommendations for Practice," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(4), pages 541-559, October.
    8. Roopesh Ranjan & Tilmann Gneiting, 2010. "Combining probability forecasts," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 72(1), pages 71-91, January.
    9. Tilmann Gneiting & Fadoua Balabdaoui & Adrian E. Raftery, 2007. "Probabilistic forecasts, calibration and sharpness," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 69(2), pages 243-268, April.
    10. 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.
    11. Eben Lazarus & Daniel J. Lewis & James H. Stock & Mark W. Watson, 2018. "HAR Inference: Recommendations for Practice Rejoinder," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(4), pages 574-575, October.
    12. 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.
    13. Yen, Yu-Min & Yen, Tso-Jung, 2021. "Testing forecast accuracy of expectiles and quantiles with the extremal consistent loss functions," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 733-758.
    14. Glenn Shafer, 2021. "Testing by betting: A strategy for statistical and scientific communication," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(2), pages 407-431, April.
    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. Fissler Tobias & Ziegel Johanna F., 2021. "On the elicitability of range value at risk," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 38(1-2), pages 25-46, January.
    2. Martin, Gael M. & Loaiza-Maya, Rubén & Maneesoonthorn, Worapree & Frazier, David T. & Ramírez-Hassan, Andrés, 2022. "Optimal probabilistic forecasts: When do they work?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 384-406.
    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. 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.
    5. Ruben Loaiza‐Maya & Gael M. Martin & David T. Frazier, 2021. "Focused Bayesian prediction," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(5), pages 517-543, August.
    6. Hajo Holzmann & Matthias Eulert, 2014. "The role of the information set for forecasting - with applications to risk management," Papers 1404.7653, arXiv.org.
    7. Tobias Fissler & Jana Hlavinová & Birgit Rudloff, 2021. "Elicitability and identifiability of set-valued measures of systemic risk," Finance and Stochastics, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 133-165, January.
    8. Yen, Yu-Min & Yen, Tso-Jung, 2021. "Testing forecast accuracy of expectiles and quantiles with the extremal consistent loss functions," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 733-758.
    9. Marc-Oliver Pohle, 2020. "The Murphy Decomposition and the Calibration-Resolution Principle: A New Perspective on Forecast Evaluation," Papers 2005.01835, arXiv.org.
    10. Tobias Fissler & Yannick Hoga, 2021. "Backtesting Systemic Risk Forecasts using Multi-Objective Elicitability," Papers 2104.10673, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2022.
    11. Knüppel, Malte & Schultefrankenfeld, Guido, 2019. "Assessing the uncertainty in central banks’ inflation outlooks," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 1748-1769.
    12. 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).
    13. 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.
    14. Granziera, Eleonora & Sekhposyan, Tatevik, 2019. "Predicting relative forecasting performance: An empirical investigation," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 1636-1657.
    15. Luisa Bisaglia & Matteo Grigoletto, 2021. "A new time-varying model for forecasting long-memory series," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 30(1), pages 139-155, March.
    16. Rafal Weron & Florian Ziel, 2018. "Electricity price forecasting," HSC Research Reports HSC/18/08, Hugo Steinhaus Center, Wroclaw University of Technology.
    17. Yuru Sun & Worapree Maneesoonthorn & Ruben Loaiza-Maya & Gael M. Martin, 2023. "Optimal probabilistic forecasts for risk management," Papers 2303.01651, arXiv.org.
    18. Gordy, Michael B. & McNeil, Alexander J., 2020. "Spectral backtests of forecast distributions with application to risk management," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    19. Sebastian Lerch & Sándor Baran, 2017. "Similarity-based semilocal estimation of post-processing models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 66(1), pages 29-51, January.
    20. Taillardat, Maxime & Fougères, Anne-Laure & Naveau, Philippe & de Fondeville, Raphaël, 2023. "Evaluating probabilistic forecasts of extremes using continuous ranked probability score distributions," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1448-1459.

    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:oup:biomet:v:109:y:2022:i:3:p:647-663.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/biomet .

    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.