The Forecaster’s Dilemma: Evaluating forecasts of extreme events

idw – Informationsdienst Wissenschaft

Nachrichten, Termine, Experten

Grafik: idw-Logo
idw-Abo
Medienpartner:
Wissenschaftsjahr


Share on: 
04/10/2017 10:34

The Forecaster’s Dilemma: Evaluating forecasts of extreme events

Dr. Peter Saueressig Presse- und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit
Heidelberger Institut für Theoretische Studien gGmbH

    Accurate predictions of extreme events do not necessarily indicate the scientific superiority of the forecaster or the forecast method from which they originate. The way forecast evaluation is conducted in the media can thus pose a dilemma.

    When it comes to extreme events, public discussion of forecasts often focuses on predictive performance. After the international financial crisis of 2007, for example, the public paid a great deal of attention to economists who had correctly predicted the crisis, attributing it to their superior predictive ability. However, restricting forecast evaluation to subsets of extreme observations has unexpected and undesired effects, and is bound to discredit even the most expert forecasts. In a recent article, statisticians Dr. Sebastian Lerch and Prof. Tilmann Gneiting (both affiliated with HITS and the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology), together with their coauthors from Norway and Italy, analyzed and explained this phenomenon and suggested potential remedies. The research team used theoretical arguments, simulation experiments and a real data study on economic variables. The article has just been published in the peer-reviewed journal Statistical Science. It is based on research funded by the Volkswagen Foundation.

    Predicting calamities every time – a worthwhile strategy?

    Forecast evaluation is often only conducted in the public arena if an extreme event has been observed; in particular, if forecasters have failed to predict an event with high economic or societal impact. An example of what this can mean for forecasters is the devastating L’Aquila earthquake in 2009 that caused 309 deaths. In the aftermath, six Italian seismologists were put on trial for not predicting the earthquake. They were found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to six years in prison until the Supreme Court in Rome acquitted them of the charges.

    But how can scientists and outsiders, such as the media, evaluate the accuracy of forecasts predicting extreme events? At first sight, the practice of selecting extreme observations while discarding non-extreme ones and proceeding on the basis of standard evaluation tools seems quite logical. Intuitively, accurate predictions on the subset of extreme observations may suggest superior predictive abilities. But limiting the analyzed data to selected subsets can be problematic. “In a nutshell, if forecast evaluation is conditional on observing a catastrophic event, predicting a disaster every time becomes a worthwhile strategy,” says Sebastian Lerch, member of the “Computational Statistics” group at HITS. Given that media attention tends to focus on extreme events, expert forecasts are bound to fail in the public eye, and it becomes tempting to base decision making on misguided inferential procedures. “We refer to this critical issue as the ‘forecaster’s dilemma,’” adds Tilmann Gneiting.

    Avoiding the forecaster’s dilemma: Method is everything.

    This predicament can be avoided if forecasts take the form of probability distributions, for which standard evaluation methods can be generalized to allow for specifically emphasizing extreme events. The paper uses economic forecasts of GDP growth and inflation rates in the United States between 1985 and 2011 to illustrate the forecaster’s dilemma and how these tools can be used to address it.

    The results of the study are especially relevant for scientists seeking to evaluate the forecasts of their own methods and models, and for external third parties who need to choose between competing forecast providers, for example to produce hazard warnings or make financial decisions.

    Although the research paper focused on an economic data set, the conclusions are important for many other applications: The forecast evaluation tools are currently being tested for use by national and international weather services.

    Publication:
    Lerch, S., Thorarinsdottir, T. L., Ravazzolo, F. and Gneiting, T. (2017). Forecaster’s
    dilemma: Extreme events and forecast evaluation. Statistical Science, in press.

    DOI: 10.1214/16-STS588

    Link:
    http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ss/1491465630

    Scientific Contact:
    Prof. Dr. Tilmann Gneiting
    Computational Statistics (CST) group
    HITS Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Studies
    Tilmann.gneiting@h.its.org
    Schloss-Wolfsbrunnenweg 35
    69118 Heidelberg

    Press Contact:
    Dr. Peter Saueressig
    Head of Communications
    Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Studies (HITS)
    Phone: +49 6221 533 245
    peter.saueressig@h-its.org



    About HITS

    The Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Studies (HITS) was established in 2010 by the physicist and SAP co-founder Klaus Tschira (1940-2015) and the Klaus Tschira Foundation as a private, non-profit research institute. HITS conducts basic research in the natural sciences, mathematics and computer science, with a focus on the processing, structuring, and analyzing of large amounts of complex data and the development of computational methods and software. The research fields range from molecular biology to astrophysics. The shareholders of HITS are the HITS Stiftung, which is a subsidiary of the Klaus Tschira Foundation, Heidelberg University and the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT). HITS also cooperates with other universities and research institutes and with industrial partners. The base funding of HITS is provided by the HITS Stiftung with funds received from the Klaus Tschira Foundation. The primary external funding agencies are the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), the German Research Foundation (DFG), and the European Union.


    More information:

    https://www.h-its.org/scientific-news/the-forecasters-dilemma/


    Criteria of this press release:
    Journalists
    Economics / business administration, Information technology, Mathematics
    transregional, national
    Research projects, Research results
    English


    The researchers Dr. Sebastian Lerch and Prof. Tilmann Gneiting


    For download

    x

    Help

    Search / advanced search of the idw archives
    Combination of search terms

    You can combine search terms with and, or and/or not, e.g. Philo not logy.

    Brackets

    You can use brackets to separate combinations from each other, e.g. (Philo not logy) or (Psycho and logy).

    Phrases

    Coherent groups of words will be located as complete phrases if you put them into quotation marks, e.g. “Federal Republic of Germany”.

    Selection criteria

    You can also use the advanced search without entering search terms. It will then follow the criteria you have selected (e.g. country or subject area).

    If you have not selected any criteria in a given category, the entire category will be searched (e.g. all subject areas or all countries).

    Cookies optimize the use of our services. By surfing on idw-online.de you agree to the use of cookies. Data Confidentiality Statement
    Okay