IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/oropre/v65y2017i3p712-728.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantile Evaluation, Sensitivity to Bracketing, and Sharing Business Payoffs

Author

Listed:
  • Yael Grushka-Cockayne

    (Darden School of Business, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903)

  • Kenneth C. Lichtendahl Jr.

    (Darden School of Business, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903)

  • Victor Richmond R. Jose

    (McDonough School of Business, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057)

  • Robert L. Winkler

    (The Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708)

Abstract

From forecasting competitions to conditional value-at-risk requirements, the use of multiple quantile assessments is growing in practice. To evaluate them, we use a rule from the general class of proper scoring rules for a forecaster’s multiple quantiles of a single uncertain quantity of interest. The general rule is additive in the component scores. Each component contains a function that measures its quantile’s distance from the realization and weights its contribution to the overall score. To determine this function, we propose that the score of a group’s combined quantile should be better than that of a randomly selected forecaster’s quantile only when the forecasters bracket the realization (i.e., their quantiles do not fall on the same side of the realization). If a score satisfies this property, we say it is sensitive to bracketing. We characterize the class of proper scoring rules that is sensitive to bracketing when the decision maker uses a generalized average to combine forecasters’ quantiles. Finally, we show how weights can be set to match the payoffs in many important business contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Yael Grushka-Cockayne & Kenneth C. Lichtendahl Jr. & Victor Richmond R. Jose & Robert L. Winkler, 2017. "Quantile Evaluation, Sensitivity to Bracketing, and Sharing Business Payoffs," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 712-728, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:oropre:v:65:y:2017:i:3:p:712-728
    DOI: 10.1287/opre.2017.1588
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.2017.1588
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/opre.2017.1588?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. Nicholas C. Petruzzi & Maqbool Dada, 1999. "Pricing and the Newsvendor Problem: A Review with Extensions," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 47(2), pages 183-194, April.
    2. Thomson, William, 1979. "Eliciting production possibilities from a well-informed manager," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 360-380, June.
    3. Kenneth C. Lichtendahl, Jr. & Robert L. Winkler, 2007. "Probability Elicitation, Scoring Rules, and Competition Among Forecasters," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(11), pages 1745-1755, November.
    4. Koenker, Roger W & Bassett, Gilbert, Jr, 1978. "Regression Quantiles," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(1), pages 33-50, January.
    5. James E. Matheson & Robert L. Winkler, 1976. "Scoring Rules for Continuous Probability Distributions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(10), pages 1087-1096, June.
    6. Werner Ehm & Tilmann Gneiting & Alexander Jordan & Fabian Krüger, 2016. "Of quantiles and expectiles: consistent scoring functions, Choquet representations and forecast rankings," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 78(3), pages 505-562, June.
    7. Richard P. Larrick & Jack B. Soll, 2006. "Erratum--Intuitions About Combining Opinions: Misappreciation of the Averaging Principle," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 309-310, February.
    8. Tilmann Gneiting & Roopesh Ranjan, 2011. "Comparing Density Forecasts Using Threshold- and Quantile-Weighted Scoring Rules," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(3), pages 411-422, July.
    9. R. Winkler & Javier Muñoz & José Cervera & José Bernardo & Gail Blattenberger & Joseph Kadane & Dennis Lindley & Allan Murphy & Robert Oliver & David Ríos-Insua, 1996. "Scoring rules and the evaluation of probabilities," TEST: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 5(1), pages 1-60, June.
    10. 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.
    11. Robert L. Winkler & Gary M. Roodman & Robert R. Britney, 1972. "The Determination of Partial Moments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 290-296, November.
    12. Victor Richmond R. Jose & Robert L. Winkler, 2009. "Evaluating Quantile Assessments," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 1287-1297, October.
    13. Kenneth C. Lichtendahl & Yael Grushka-Cockayne & Robert L. Winkler, 2013. "Is It Better to Average Probabilities or Quantiles?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(7), pages 1594-1611, July.
    14. Gneiting, Tilmann & Ranjan, Roopesh, 2011. "Comparing Density Forecasts Using Threshold- and Quantile-Weighted Scoring Rules," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 29(3), pages 411-422.
    15. Susanne Emmer & Marie Kratz & Dirk Tasche, 2013. "What is the best risk measure in practice? A comparison of standard measures," Papers 1312.1645, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2015.
    16. 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.
    17. Richard P. Larrick & Jack B. Soll, 2006. "Intuitions About Combining Opinions: Misappreciation of the Averaging Principle," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(1), pages 111-127, January.
    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. Tino Werner, 2022. "Elicitability of Instance and Object Ranking," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 19(2), pages 123-140, June.
    2. Petropoulos, Fotios & Apiletti, Daniele & Assimakopoulos, Vassilios & Babai, Mohamed Zied & Barrow, Devon K. & Ben Taieb, Souhaib & Bergmeir, Christoph & Bessa, Ricardo J. & Bijak, Jakub & Boylan, Joh, 2022. "Forecasting: theory and practice," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 705-871.
      • Fotios Petropoulos & Daniele Apiletti & Vassilios Assimakopoulos & Mohamed Zied Babai & Devon K. Barrow & Souhaib Ben Taieb & Christoph Bergmeir & Ricardo J. Bessa & Jakub Bijak & John E. Boylan & Jet, 2020. "Forecasting: theory and practice," Papers 2012.03854, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2022.
    3. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Emmanuel Kemel & Olivier l’Haridon, 2021. "Measuring Beliefs Under Ambiguity," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 69(2), pages 599-612, March.
    4. Xiaojia Guo & Yael Grushka-Cockayne & Bert De Reyck, 2020. "London Heathrow Airport Uses Real-Time Analytics for Improving Operations," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 50(5), pages 325-339, September.
    5. Fotios Petropoulos & Enno Siemsen, 2023. "Forecast Selection and Representativeness," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(5), pages 2672-2690, May.
    6. Wang, Xiaoqian & Hyndman, Rob J. & Li, Feng & Kang, Yanfei, 2023. "Forecast combinations: An over 50-year review," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 1518-1547.
    7. Jens Witkowski & Rupert Freeman & Jennifer Wortman Vaughan & David M. Pennock & Andreas Krause, 2023. "Incentive-Compatible Forecasting Competitions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(3), pages 1354-1374, March.
    8. Chen, Zhi & Gaba, Anil & Tsetlin, Ilia & Winkler, Robert L., 2022. "Evaluating quantile forecasts in the M5 uncertainty competition," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 1531-1545.

    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. Gneiting, Tilmann, 2011. "Quantiles as optimal point forecasts," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 197-207, April.
    2. Petropoulos, Fotios & Apiletti, Daniele & Assimakopoulos, Vassilios & Babai, Mohamed Zied & Barrow, Devon K. & Ben Taieb, Souhaib & Bergmeir, Christoph & Bessa, Ricardo J. & Bijak, Jakub & Boylan, Joh, 2022. "Forecasting: theory and practice," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 705-871.
      • Fotios Petropoulos & Daniele Apiletti & Vassilios Assimakopoulos & Mohamed Zied Babai & Devon K. Barrow & Souhaib Ben Taieb & Christoph Bergmeir & Ricardo J. Bessa & Jakub Bijak & John E. Boylan & Jet, 2020. "Forecasting: theory and practice," Papers 2012.03854, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2022.
    3. Robert L. Winkler & Yael Grushka-Cockayne & Kenneth C. Lichtendahl Jr. & Victor Richmond R. Jose, 2019. "Probability Forecasts and Their Combination: A Research Perspective," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 239-260, December.
    4. Werner Ehm & Tilmann Gneiting & Alexander Jordan & Fabian Krüger, 2016. "Of quantiles and expectiles: consistent scoring functions, Choquet representations and forecast rankings," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 78(3), pages 505-562, June.
    5. C. Alexander & M. Coulon & Y. Han & X. Meng, 2024. "Evaluating the discrimination ability of proper multi-variate scoring rules," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 334(1), pages 857-883, March.
    6. Taylor, James W. & Taylor, Kathryn S., 2023. "Combining probabilistic forecasts of COVID-19 mortality in the United States," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(1), pages 25-41.
    7. Gneiting, Tilmann, 2011. "Quantiles as optimal point forecasts," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 197-207.
    8. Alexander, Carol & Han, Yang & Meng, Xiaochun, 2023. "Static and dynamic models for multivariate distribution forecasts: Proper scoring rule tests of factor-quantile versus multivariate GARCH models," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1078-1096.
    9. Wang, Xiaoqian & Hyndman, Rob J. & Li, Feng & Kang, Yanfei, 2023. "Forecast combinations: An over 50-year review," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 1518-1547.
    10. Fabian Kruger & Hendrik Plett, 2022. "Prediction intervals for economic fixed-event forecasts," Papers 2210.13562, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    11. Taillardat, Maxime & Fougères, Anne-Laure & Naveau, Philippe & de Fondeville, Raphaël, 2023. "Evaluating probabilistic forecasts of extremes using continuous ranked probability score distributions," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1448-1459.
    12. Catania, Leopoldo & Grassi, Stefano, 2022. "Forecasting cryptocurrency volatility," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 878-894.
    13. Alexander Henzi & Johanna F. Ziegel & Tilmann Gneiting, 2021. "Isotonic distributional regression," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 83(5), pages 963-993, November.
    14. Gensler, André & Sick, Bernhard & Vogt, Stephan, 2018. "A review of uncertainty representations and metaverification of uncertainty assessment techniques for renewable energies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 352-379.
    15. Gneiting, Tilmann, 2011. "Making and Evaluating Point Forecasts," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 106(494), pages 746-762.
    16. Xiaochun Meng & James W. Taylor & Souhaib Ben Taieb & Siran Li, 2020. "Scores for Multivariate Distributions and Level Sets," Papers 2002.09578, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2023.
    17. Diks, Cees & Fang, Hao, 2020. "Comparing density forecasts in a risk management context," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 531-551.
    18. Konrad Bogner & Florian Pappenberger & Massimiliano Zappa, 2019. "Machine Learning Techniques for Predicting the Energy Consumption/Production and Its Uncertainties Driven by Meteorological Observations and Forecasts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-22, June.
    19. Natalia Nolde & Johanna F. Ziegel, 2016. "Elicitability and backtesting: Perspectives for banking regulation," Papers 1608.05498, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2017.
    20. Tino Werner, 2022. "Elicitability of Instance and Object Ranking," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 19(2), pages 123-140, June.

    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:oropre:v:65:y:2017:i:3:p:712-728. 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.