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.

Scaling and measurement error sensitivity of scoring rules for distribution forecasts

Local scale invariance and robustness of proper scoring rules

Scaling-aware rating of count forecasts

Regions of Reliability in the Evaluation of Multivariate Probabilistic Forecasts

Beyond Strictly Proper Scoring Rules: The Importance of Being Local

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

Locally tail-scale invariant scoring rules for evaluation of extreme value forecasts

Evaluating the Discrimination Ability of Proper Multivariate Scoring Rules

Weighted scoringRules: Emphasising Particular Outcomes when Evaluating Probabilistic Forecasts

Scores for Multivariate Distributions and Level Sets

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

Evaluating Probabilistic Forecasts with scoringRules

Static and Dynamic Models for Multivariate Distribution Forecasts: Proper Scoring Rule Tests of Factor-Quantile vs. Multivariate GARCH Models

Overprecision in the Survey of Professional Forecasters

Scoring Rules and Calibration for Imprecise Probabilities

Scoring rule nets: beyond mean target prediction in multivariate regression

Disciplining growth‐at‐risk models with survey of professional forecasters and Bayesian quantile regression

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

The efficient frontiers of mean-variance portfolio rules under distribution misspecification

Evaluating infectious disease forecasts with allocation scoring rules

Assessing the accuracy of directional forecasts