IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/stabus/1957.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Testing Multiple Forecasters

Author

Listed:
  • Feinberg, Yossi

    (Stanford U)

  • Stewart, Colin

    (Yale U)

Abstract

We consider a cross-calibration test of predictions by multiple potential experts in a stochastic environment. This test checks whether each expert is calibrated conditional on the predictions made by other experts. We show that this test is good in the sense that a true expert--one informed of the true distribution of the process--is guaranteed to pass the test no matter what the other potential experts do, and false experts will fail the test on all but a small (category one) set of true distributions. Furthermore, even when there is no true expert present, a test similar to cross-calibration cannot be simultaneously manipulated by multiple false experts, but at the cost of failing some true experts. In contrast, tests that allow false experts to make precise predictions can be jointly manipulated.

Suggested Citation

  • Feinberg, Yossi & Stewart, Colin, 2007. "Testing Multiple Forecasters," Research Papers 1957, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
  • Handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:1957
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://gsbapps.stanford.edu/researchpapers/library/RP1957.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nabil I. Al-Najjar & Jonathan Weinstein, 2008. "Comparative Testing of Experts," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(3), pages 541-559, May.
    2. Kalai, Ehud & Lehrer, Ehud & Smorodinsky, Rann, 1999. "Calibrated Forecasting and Merging," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 29(1-2), pages 151-169, October.
    3. Fudenberg, Drew & Levine, David K., 1999. "Conditional Universal Consistency," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 29(1-2), pages 104-130, October.
    4. Alvaro Sandroni, 2003. "The reproducible properties of correct forecasts," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 32(1), pages 151-159, December.
    5. Eddie Dekel & Yossi Feinberg, 2006. "Non-Bayesian Testing of a Stochastic Prediction," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 73(4), pages 893-906.
    6. Wojciech Olszewski & Alvaro Sandroni, 2006. "Strategic Manipulation of Empirical Tests," Discussion Papers 1425, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    7. Vladimir Vovk & Glenn Shafer, 2005. "Good randomized sequential probability forecasting is always possible," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 67(5), pages 747-763.
    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. Yossi Feinberg & Nicolas Lambert, 2015. "Mostly calibrated," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 44(1), pages 153-163, February.
    2. Wojciech Olszewski & Alvaro Sandroni, 2006. "Strategic Manipulation of Empirical Tests," Discussion Papers 1425, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    3. Wojciech Olszewski & Alvaro Sandroni, 2008. "Manipulability of Future-Independent Tests," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(6), pages 1437-1466, November.
    4. Dean Foster & Rakesh Vohra, 2011. "Calibration: Respice, Adspice, Prospice," Discussion Papers 1537, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    5. Sylvain Chassang, 2013. "Calibrated Incentive Contracts," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(5), pages 1935-1971, September.
    6. Colin, Stewart, 2011. "Nonmanipulable Bayesian testing," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(5), pages 2029-2041, September.
    7. Francisco Barreras & Álvaro J. Riascos, 2016. "Screening multiple potentially false experts," MONOGRAFÍAS 015075, QUANTIL.
    8. Feinberg, Yossi & Lambert, Nicolas S., 2011. "Mostly Calibrated," Research Papers 2090, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    9. Olszewski, Wojciech, 2015. "Calibration and Expert Testing," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, Elsevier.
    10. Itai Areili & Yakov Babichenko & Rann Smorodinsky, 2017. "Robust Forecast Aggregation," Papers 1710.02838, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2018.
    11. Alvaro Sandroni & Wojciech Olszewski, 2008. "Falsifiability," PIER Working Paper Archive 08-016, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ecl:stabus:1957. 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: (). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/gsstaus.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.