IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v57y2011i2p308-314.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Interpretation of Probabilities Estimated by Maximum Likelihood or Score

Author

Listed:
  • D. J. Johnstone

    (School of Business, University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia)

Abstract

The conventional method of estimating a probability prediction model by maximum likelihood (MLE) is a form of maximum score estimation with economic meaning. Of all the probabilities that a given model might have produced, those obtained by MLE yield maximum in-sample betting return to a log utility investor. Recognition of this affinity between MLE and log utility begs the wider methodological question of whether different decision makers benefit in different degrees from different probabilities. Probabilities produced by MLE can be either too conservative or too bold relative to those found by maximizing utility under more risk-tolerant or risk-averse score functions. A very (not very) risk-averse user, who bets characteristically small (large) fractions of wealth based on a conservative forecast, is bound to make a rapidly (slowly) increasing bet as the forecast probability becomes progressively bolder or more distant from the market probability. The effect of this interaction between risk aversion and forecast is that a highly risk-averse user may need a much bolder forecast to obtain the same certainty equivalent as a more risk-tolerant investor. It follows more broadly that professional forecasters should anticipate how a client with given risk aversion expects to gain from any given forecast, or forecast revision, before committing resources toward making a better informed (but still honest) forecast. This paper was accepted by Peter Wakker, decision analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • D. J. Johnstone, 2011. "Economic Interpretation of Probabilities Estimated by Maximum Likelihood or Score," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(2), pages 308-314, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:57:y:2011:i:2:p:308-314
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1100.1272
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1100.1272
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.1100.1272?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nolan Miller & Paul Resnick & Richard Zeckhauser, 2005. "Eliciting Informative Feedback: The Peer-Prediction Method," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(9), pages 1359-1373, September.
    2. Andrew Grant & David Johnstone & Oh Kang Kwon, 2008. "Optimal Betting Strategies for Simultaneous Games," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 5(1), pages 10-18, March.
    3. Victor Richmond R. Jose & Robert F. Nau & Robert L. Winkler, 2008. "Scoring Rules, Generalized Entropy, and Utility Maximization," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 1146-1157, October.
    4. David J. Johnstone, 2007. "The Parimutuel Kelly Probability Scoring Rule," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 4(2), pages 66-75, June.
    5. 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.
    6. Reinhard Selten, 1998. "Axiomatic Characterization of the Quadratic Scoring Rule," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 43-61, June.
    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. Sung, Ming-Chien & McDonald, David C.J. & Johnson, Johnnie E.V., 2016. "Probabilistic forecasting with discrete choice models: Evaluating predictions with pseudo-coefficients of determination," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(3), pages 1021-1030.
    2. D. J. Johnstone, 2021. "Accounting information, disclosure, and expected utility: Do investors really abhor uncertainty?," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1-2), pages 3-35, January.
    3. Ma, Tiejun & Tang, Leilei & McGroarty, Frank & Sung, Ming-Chien & Johnson, Johnnie E. V, 2016. "Time is money: Costing the impact of duration misperception in market prices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 255(2), pages 397-410.
    4. David J. Johnstone & Victor Richmond R. Jose & Robert L. Winkler, 2011. "Tailored Scoring Rules for Probabilities," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 256-268, December.
    5. Andrew Grant & David Johnstone & Oh Kang Kwon, 2019. "A Probability Scoring Rule for Simultaneous Events," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 301-313, December.
    6. McGee, Richard J. & McGroarty, Frank, 2017. "The risk premium that never was: A fair value explanation of the volatility spread," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 262(1), pages 370-380.
    7. D. J. Johnstone & S. Jones & V. R. R. Jose & M. Peat, 2013. "Measures of the economic value of probabilities of bankruptcy," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 176(3), pages 635-653, June.
    8. Edgar C. Merkle & Mark Steyvers, 2013. "Choosing a Strictly Proper Scoring Rule," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 292-304, December.
    9. Costa Sperb, L.F. & Sung, M.-C. & Ma, T. & Johnson, J.E.V., 2022. "Turning the heat on financial decisions: Examining the role temperature plays in the incidence of bias in a time-limited financial market," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 299(3), pages 1142-1157.
    10. Lessmann, Stefan & Sung, Ming-Chien & Johnson, Johnnie E.V. & Ma, Tiejun, 2012. "A new methodology for generating and combining statistical forecasting models to enhance competitive event prediction," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 218(1), pages 163-174.
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:1:p:86-96 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Arthur Carvalho, 2015. "Tailored proper scoring rules elicit decision weights," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(1), pages 86-96, January.
    13. Sung, Ming-Chien & McDonald, David C.J. & Johnson, Johnnie E.V. & Tai, Chung-Ching & Cheah, Eng-Tuck, 2019. "Improving prediction market forecasts by detecting and correcting possible over-reaction to price movements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(1), pages 389-405.

    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. Edgar C. Merkle & Mark Steyvers, 2013. "Choosing a Strictly Proper Scoring Rule," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 292-304, December.
    2. Andrew Grant & David Johnstone & Oh Kang Kwon, 2019. "A Probability Scoring Rule for Simultaneous Events," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 301-313, December.
    3. Eva Regnier, 2018. "Probability Forecasts Made at Multiple Lead Times," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 2407-2426, May.
    4. Karl Schlag & James Tremewan & Joël Weele, 2015. "A penny for your thoughts: a survey of methods for eliciting beliefs," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(3), pages 457-490, September.
    5. Chambers, Christopher P. & Healy, Paul J. & Lambert, Nicolas S., 2019. "Proper scoring rules with general preferences: A dual characterization of optimal reports," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 322-341.
    6. Christopher P. Chambers & Nicolas S. Lambert, 2021. "Dynamic Belief Elicitation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(1), pages 375-414, January.
    7. Karl Schlag & James Tremewan & Joël Weele, 2015. "A penny for your thoughts: a survey of methods for eliciting beliefs," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(3), pages 457-490, September.
    8. Arthur Carvalho & Kate Larson, 2012. "Sharing Rewards Among Strangers Based on Peer Evaluations," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 253-273, September.
    9. David J. Johnstone & Victor Richmond R. Jose & Robert L. Winkler, 2011. "Tailored Scoring Rules for Probabilities," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 256-268, December.
    10. Peysakhovich, Alexander & Plagborg-Møller, Mikkel, 2012. "A note on proper scoring rules and risk aversion," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(1), pages 357-361.
    11. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Rasocha, Vlastimil, 2021. "Experimental methods: Eliciting beliefs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 234-256.
    12. David Kaplan & Chansoon Lee, 2018. "Optimizing Prediction Using Bayesian Model Averaging: Examples Using Large-Scale Educational Assessments," Evaluation Review, , vol. 42(4), pages 423-457, August.
    13. Tommaso Proietti & Martyna Marczak & Gianluigi Mazzi, 2017. "Euromind‐ D : A Density Estimate of Monthly Gross Domestic Product for the Euro Area," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(3), pages 683-703, April.
    14. Krüger, Fabian & Pavlova, Lora, 2019. "Quantifying subjective oncertainty in survey expectations," Working Papers 0664, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    15. L. Robin Keller & Ali Abbas & J. Eric Bickel & Vicki M. Bier & David V. Budescu & John C. Butler & Philippe Delquié & Kenneth C. Lichtendahl & Jason R. W. Merrick & Ahti Salo & George Wu, 2011. "From the Editors ---Probability Scoring Rules, Ambiguity, Multiattribute Terrorist Utility, and Sensitivity Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(4), pages 251-255, December.
    16. Rakesh K. Sarin, 2013. "From the Editor —Optimal Betting, Reducing Unnecessary Mammography in Breast Cancer Diagnosis, Product Line Design, and Value of Information," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(3), pages 187-188, September.
    17. Leonard Smith & Emma Suckling & Erica Thompson & Trevor Maynard & Hailiang Du, 2015. "Towards improving the framework for probabilistic forecast evaluation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 132(1), pages 31-45, September.
    18. Emilio Zanetti Chini, 2018. "Forecaster’s utility and forecasts coherence," DEM Working Papers Series 145, University of Pavia, Department of Economics and Management.
    19. Borgonovo, Emanuele & Marinacci, Massimo, 2015. "Decision analysis under ambiguity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 244(3), pages 823-836.
    20. Breitmoser, Yves & Tan, Jonathan H.W., 2020. "Why should majority voting be unfair?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 281-295.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:57:y:2011:i:2:p:308-314. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.