text stringlengths 1 298 |
|---|
David D. Jackson, Sum Mak, David A. Rhoades, Matthew C. Gerstenberger, Naoshi Hirata, Maria Liukis, |
Philip J. Maechling, Anne Strader, Matteo Taroni, Stefan Wiemer, Jeremy D. Zechar, and Jiancang |
Zhuang. The collaboratory for the study of earthquake predictability: Achievements and priorities. Seis |
mological Research Letters, 89(4):1305–1313, June 2018. ISSN 1938-2057. https://doi.org/10.1785/ |
0220180053. |
Benedikt Schulz and Sebastian Lerch. Machine learning methods for postprocessing ensemble forecasts of |
wind gusts: A systematic comparison. Monthly Weather Review, 150(1):235–257, January 2022. ISSN |
1520-0493. https://doi.org/10.1175/mwr-d-21-0150.1. |
C. E. Shannon. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(4):623–656, |
October 1948. ISSN 0005-8580. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb00917.x. |
Alex Smola, Arthur Gretton, Le Song, and Bernhard Schölkopf. A hilbert space embedding for distributions. |
In Marcus Hutter, Rocco A. Servedio, and Eiji Takimoto, editors, Algorithmic Learning Theory, pages 13 |
31, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. ISBN 978-3-540-75225-7. |
Joël Stein and Fabien Stoop. Neighborhood-based ensemble evaluation using the crps. Monthly Weather |
Review, 150(8):1901–1914, August 2022. ISSN 1520-0493. https://doi.org/10.1175/mwr-d-21-0224.1. |
Ingo Steinwart and Andreas Christmann. Support Vector Machines. Information Science and Statistics. |
Springer, New York, 2008. ISBN 978-0-387-77241-7. |
Ingo Steinwart and Johanna F. Ziegel. Strictly proper kernel scores and characteristic kernels on compact |
spaces. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 51:510–542, 2021. ISSN 1063-5203. https: |
//doi.org/10.1016/j.acha.2019.11.005. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ |
pii/S1063520317301483. |
Gábor Székely. E-statistics: The energy of statistical samples. techreport, Bowling Green State University, |
2003. |
Maxime Taillardat. Skewed and mixture of gaussian distributions for ensemble postprocessing. Atmosphere, |
12(8):966, July 2021. ISSN 2073-4433. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12080966. |
Maxime Taillardat and Olivier Mestre. From research to applications– examples of operational ensemble |
post-processing in france using machine learning. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 27(2):329–347, May |
2020. ISSN 1607-7946. https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-27-329-2020. |
34 |
Maxime Taillardat, Olivier Mestre, Michaël Zamo, and Philippe Naveau. Calibrated ensemble forecasts |
using quantile regression forests and ensemble model output statistics. Monthly Weather Review, 144(6): |
2375–2393, June 2016. ISSN 1520-0493. https://doi.org/10.1175/mwr-d-15-0260.1. |
O. Talagrand, R. Vautard, and B Strauss. Evaluation of probabilistic prediction systems. In Workshop on |
Predictability, 20-22 October 1997, pages 1–26, Shinfield Park, Reading, 1997. ECMWF. |
Thordis L. Thorarinsdottir and Nina Schuhen. Verification: Assessment of Calibration and Accuracy, pages |
155–186. Elsevier, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-812372-0.00006-6. |
Thordis L. Thorarinsdottir, Tilmann Gneiting, and Nadine Gissibl. Using proper divergence functions to |
evaluate climate models. SIAM/ASA Journal on Uncertainty Quantification, 1(1):522–534, January 2013. |
ISSN 2166-2525. https://doi.org/10.1137/130907550. |
Alexander Tsyplakov. Evaluating density forecasts: A comment. SSRN Electronic Journal, 2011. ISSN |
1556-5068. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1907799. |
Alexander Tsyplakov. Evaluation of probabilistic forecasts: Proper scoring rules and moments. SSRN |
Electronic Journal, 2013. ISSN 1556-5068. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2236605. |
Alexander Tsyplakov. Evaluation of probabilistic forecasts: Conditional auto-calibration, 2020. URL https: |
//www.sas.upenn.edu/~fdiebold/papers2/Tsyplakov_Auto_calibration_sent_eswc2020.pdf. |
Stéphane Vannitsem, John Bjørnar Bremnes, Jonathan Demaeyer, Gavin R. Evans, Jonathan Flowerdew, |
Stephan Hemri, Sebastian Lerch, Nigel Roberts, Susanne Theis, Aitor Atencia, Zied Ben Bouallègue, |
Jonas Bhend, Markus Dabernig, Lesley De Cruz, Leila Hieta, Olivier Mestre, Lionel Moret, Iris Odak |
Plenković, Maurice Schmeits, Maxime Taillardat, Joris Van den Bergh, Bert Van Schaeybroeck, Kirien |
Whan, and Jussi Ylhaisi. Statistical postprocessing for weather forecasts: Review, challenges, and avenues |
in a big data world. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 102(3):E681–E699, March 2021. |
ISSN 1520-0477. https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-19-0308.1. |
Heini Wernli, Marcus Paulat, Martin Hagen, and Christoph Frei. Sal—a novel quality measure for the |
verification of quantitative precipitation forecasts. Monthly Weather Review, 136(11):4470–4487, November |
2008. ISSN 0027-0644. https://doi.org/10.1175/2008mwr2415.1. |
Andreas Winkelbauer. Moments and absolute moments of the normal distribution. September 2014. https: |
//doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1209.4340. |
R. L. Winkler, Javier Muñoz, José L. Cervera, José M. Bernardo, Gail Blattenberger, Joseph B. Kadane, |
Dennis V. Lindley, Allan H. Murphy, Robert M Oliver, and David Ríos-Insua. Scoring rules and the |
evaluation of probabilities. Test, 5(1):1–60, June 1996. ISSN 1863-8260. https://doi.org/10.1007/ |
bf02562681. |
Robert L. Winkler. Rewarding Expertise in Probability Assessment, pages 127–140. Springer Netherlands, |
1977. ISBN 9789401012768. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1276-8_10. |
Michaël Zamo and Philippe Naveau. Estimation of the continuous ranked probability score with limited |
information and applications to ensemble weather forecasts. Mathematical Geosciences, 50(2):209–234, |
November 2017. ISSN 1874-8953. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11004-017-9709-7. |
Florian Ziel and Kevin Berk. Multivariate forecasting evaluation: On sensitive and strictly proper scoring |
rules. 2019. |
35 |
A Expected univariate scoring rules |
A.1 Squared Error |
For any F,G ∈ P2(R), the expectation of the squared error (2) is : |
EG[SE(F,Y )] = (µF −µG)2 +σG2, |
where µF is the mean of the distribution F and µG and σG2 are the mean and the variance of the distribution |
G. |
Proof. |
EG[SE(F,Y )] = EG[(µF −Y)2] |
=µ2 |
F −2 µFEG[Y]+EG[Y2] |
Using the fact that E[X2] = Var(X)+E[X]2, |
EG[SE(F,Y )] = µ2 |
F −2 µFµG +σ2 |
G +µ2 |
G |
=(µF −µG)2 +σ2 |
G |
A.2 Quantile Score |
For any F,G ∈ P1(R), the expectation of the quantile score of level α (4) is : |
F−1(α) |
EG[QSα(F,Y)] = |
−∞ |
(F−1(α) −y)G(dy)−α |
(F−1(α) −y)G(dy); |
R |
=EG[QSα(G,Y)]+ (G(F−1(α))−α)(F−1(α)−G−1(α))− |
Proof. Inspired by the proof of the propriety of the quantile score in Friederichs and Hense (2008). |
EG[QSα(F,Y)] = |
= |
= |
(1y≤F−1(α) − α)(F−1(α) −y)G(dy) |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.