text stringlengths 1 298 |
|---|
(17) |
where P denotes a patch and |P| its dimension. Proposition 1 ensures that this transformation can be used |
to construct proper scoring rules. The scoring rule involved in the construction has to be univariate, however, |
the choice depends on the general properties preferred. For example, the SE would focus on the mean of |
the transformed quantity, whereas the AE would target its median. It is worth noting that the total can be |
derived by the mean transformation by removing the prefactor |
totalP(X) = |
Xi. |
i∈P |
In the case of precipitation, the total is more used than the mean since the total precipitation over a river |
basin can be decisive in evaluating flood risk. For example, one could construct an adapted version of the |
amplitude component of the SAL method (Wernli et al., 2008; Radanovics et al., 2018) using the SE if |
the mean total precipitation is of interest. Gneiting (2011) presents other links between the quantity of |
15 |
interest and the scoring rule associated. Similarly, the transformations associated with the minimum and |
the maximum over a patch P can be obtained : |
minP(X) = min |
i∈P |
(Xi); |
maxP(X) = max |
i∈P |
(Xi). |
The maximum or minimum can be useful when considering extreme events. It can help understand if the |
severity of an event is well-captured. For example, as minimum and maximum temperatures affect crop |
yields (see, e.g., Agnolucci et al. 2020), it can be of particular interest that a weather forecast within an |
agricultural model correctly predicts the minimum and maximum temperatures. After studying the mean, |
it is natural to think of the moments of higher order. We can define the transformation associated with the |
variance over a patch P as |
VarP(X) = 1 |
|P| i∈P |
(Xi −meanP(X))2. |
The variance transformation can provide information on the fluctuations over a patch and be used to assess |
the quality of the local variability of the forecast. In a more general setup, it can be of interest to use a |
transformation related to the moment of order n and the transformation associated follows naturally |
Mn,P(X) = 1 |
|P| i∈P |
Xn |
i . |
More application-oriented transformations are the central or standardized moments (e.g., skewness or kurto |
sis). Their transformations can be obtained directly from estimators. As underlined in Heinrich-Mertsching |
et al. (2021), since Proposition 1 applies to any transformation, there is no condition on having an unbiased |
estimator to obtain proper scoring rules. |
Threshold exceedance plays an important role in decision making such as weather alerts. For example, |
MeteoSwiss’ heat warning levels are based on the exceedance of daily mean temperature over three consec |
utive days (Allen et al., 2023a). They can be defined by the simultaneous exceedance of a certain threshold |
and the fraction of threshold exceedance (FTE) is the summary statistic associated. |
FTEP,t(X) = 1 |
|P| i∈P |
1{Xi≥t}. |
(18) |
FTEs can be used as an extension of univariate threshold exceedances and it prevents the double-penalty |
effect. FTEs may be used to target compound events (e.g., the simultaneous exceedances of a threshold |
at multiple locations of interest). Roberts and Lean (2008) used an FTE-based SE over different sizes of |
neighborhoods (patches) to verify at which scale forecasts become skillful. To assess extreme precipita |
tion forecasts, Rivoire et al. (2023) introduces scores for extremes with temporal and spatial aggregation |
separately. Extreme events are defined as values higher than the seasonal 95% quantile. In the subseasonal |
to-seasonal range, the temporal patches are 7-day windows centered on the extreme event and the spatial |
patches are square boxes of 150 km × 150 km centered on the extreme event. The final scores are transformed |
BS (5) with a threshold of one event predicted across the patch. |
Correctly predicting the structure dependence is crucial in multivariate forecasting. Variograms are sum |
mary statistics representing the dependence structure. The variogram of order p of the pair (i,j) corresponds |
to the following transformation : |
γp |
ij(X) = |Xi −Xj|p. |
As mentioned in the Introduction, using both the transformation and aggregation principles, we can recover |
the VS of order p (14) introduced in Scheuerer and Hamill (2015) : |
d |
VSp(F,y) = |
i,j=1 |
d |
wijSEγp |
ij |
(F,y) = |
i,j=1 |
wij (EF[|Xi − Xj|p] −|yi −yj|)2 . |
16 |
Along with the well-known VS of order p, Scheuerer and Hamill (2015) introduced alternatives where the |
scoring rule applied on the transformation is the CRPS (6) or the AE (3) instead of the SE (2). As mentioned |
previously, under the intrinsic hypothesis of Matheron (1963) (i.e., pairwise differences only depend on the |
distance between locations), the weights can be selected to obtain an optimal signal-to-noise ratio. Moreover, |
the weights could be selected to investigate a specific scale by giving a non-zero weight to pairs separated |
by a given distance. |
In the case of spatial forecasts over a grid of size d×d, a spatial version of the variogram transformation |
is available : |
γi,j(X) = |Xi −Xj|p, |
where i,j ∈ D = {1,...,d}2 are the coordinates of grid points. Under the intrinsic hypothesis of Matheron |
(1963), the variogram between grid points separated by the vector h can be estimated by : |
γX(h) = 1 |
2|D(h)| i∈D(h) |
γi,i+h(X), |
where D(h) = {i ∈ D : i+h ∈ D}. This directed variogram can be used to target the verification of the |
anisotropy of the dependence structure. The isotropy transformation associated to the distance h can be |
defined by |
Tiso,h(X) = − γX((h,0))−γX((0,h)) 2 |
2γX((h,0))2 |
|D((h,0))| + 2γX((0,h))2 |
. |
|D((0,h))| |
(19) |
This transformation is the isotropy pre-rank function proposed in Allen et al. (2024). The isotropy trans |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.