Abstract:Summary Operational earthquake forecasting for risk management and communication during seismic sequences depends on our ability to select an optimal forecasting model. To do this, we need to compare the performance of competing models in prospective experiments, and to rank their performance according to the outcome using a fair, reproducible, and reliable method, usually in a low-probability environment. The Collaboratory for the Study of Earthquake Predictability (CSEP) conducts prospective earthquake forecasting experiments around the globe. In this framework, it is crucial that the metrics employed to rank the competing forecasts are ‘proper’, meaning that, on average, they prefer the data generating model. We prove that the Parimutuel Gambling score, proposed, and in some cases applied, as a metric for comparing probabilistic seismicity forecasts, is in general ‘improper’. In the special case where it is proper, we show it can still be used improperly. We demonstrate the conclusions both analytically and graphically providing a set of simulation based techniques that can be used to assess if a score is proper or not. They only require a data generating model and, at least two forecasts to be compared. We compare the Parimutuel Gambling score’s performance with two commonly-used proper scores (the Brier and logarithmic scores) using confidence intervals to account for the uncertainty around the observed score difference. We suggest that using confidence intervals enables a rigorous approach to distinguish between the predictive skills of candidate forecasts, in addition to their rankings. Our analysis shows that the Parimutuel Gambling score is biased, and the direction of the bias depends on the forecasts taking part in the experiment. Our findings suggest the Parimutuel Gambling score should not be used to distinguishing between multiple competing forecasts, and for care to be taken in the case where only two are being compared.

A Proper Scoring Rule for Validation of Competing Risks Models

Examining properness in the external validation of survival models with squared and logarithmic losses

Proper Scoring Rules for Survival Analysis

Beyond Strictly Proper Scoring Rules: The Importance of Being Local

Local scale invariance and robustness of proper scoring rules

Predictive Uncertainty Quantification via Risk Decompositions for Strictly Proper Scoring Rules

Survival Models: Proper Scoring Rule and Stochastic Optimization with Competing Risks

Optimization of Scoring Rules

Overview of model validation for survival regression model with competing risks using melanoma study data

A comparative study of scoring systems by simulations

Proper Scoring Rules for Multivariate Probabilistic Forecasts based on Aggregation and Transformation

Evaluating Density Forecasts Using Weighted Multivariate Scores in a Risk Management Context

Quantifying Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertainty with Proper Scoring Rules

Development of scoring system for risk stratification in clinical medicine: a step-by-step tutorial.

Scoring Rules and Calibration for Imprecise Probabilities

Compatible Weighted Proper Scoring Rules

Scoring rule nets: beyond mean target prediction in multivariate regression

Teaching Models To Survive: Proper Scoring Rule and Stochastic Optimization with Competing Risks

Superior Scoring Rules for Probabilistic Evaluation of Single-Label Multi-Class Classification Tasks

Scores for Multivariate Distributions and Level Sets

Ranking earthquake forecasts using proper scoring rules: Binary events in a low probability environment