A test of forecast rationality based on the weak eciency of ®xed-event forecasts was proposed by Nordhaus (1987). This paper considers the scope for pooling ®xed-event forecasts across `events', to deliver more powerful tests of the weak-eciency hypothesis, when only a small number of ®xedevent fore
Robust evaluation of fixed-event forecast rationality
✍ Scribed by Michael P. Clements; Nick Taylor
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 2001
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 124 KB
- Volume
- 20
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0277-6693
- DOI
- 10.1002/for.806
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
✦ Synopsis
Abstract
In this paper we introduce a new testing procedure for evaluating the rationality of fixed‐event forecasts based on a pseudo‐maximum likelihood estimator. The procedure is designed to be robust to departures in the normality assumption. A model is introduced to show that such departures are likely when forecasters experience a credibility loss when they make large changes to their forecasts. The test is illustrated using monthly fixed‐event forecasts produced by four UK institutions. Use of the robust test leads to the conclusion that certain forecasts are rational while use of the Gaussian‐based test implies that certain forecasts are irrational. The difference in the results is due to the nature of the underlying data. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES
## Abstract Many different performance measures have been developed to evaluate field predictions in meteorology. However, a researcher or practitioner encountering a new or unfamiliar measure may have difficulty in interpreting its results, which may lead to them avoiding new measures and relying