Accessibility navigation


Equitability revisited: why the “equitable threat score” is not equitable

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Hogan, R. J., Ferro, C. A. T., Jolliffe, I. T. and Stephenson, D. B. (2010) Equitability revisited: why the “equitable threat score” is not equitable. Weather and Forecasting, 25 (2). pp. 710-726. ISSN 1520-0434

[img] Text - Published Version
· Please see our End User Agreement before downloading.

783Kb

To link to this article DOI: 10.1175/2009WAF2222350.1

Abstract/Summary

In the forecasting of binary events, verification measures that are “equitable” were defined by Gandin and Murphy to satisfy two requirements: 1) they award all random forecasting systems, including those that always issue the same forecast, the same expected score (typically zero), and 2) they are expressible as the linear weighted sum of the elements of the contingency table, where the weights are independent of the entries in the table, apart from the base rate. The authors demonstrate that the widely used “equitable threat score” (ETS), as well as numerous others, satisfies neither of these requirements and only satisfies the first requirement in the limit of an infinite sample size. Such measures are referred to as “asymptotically equitable.” In the case of ETS, the expected score of a random forecasting system is always positive and only falls below 0.01 when the number of samples is greater than around 30. Two other asymptotically equitable measures are the odds ratio skill score and the symmetric extreme dependency score, which are more strongly inequitable than ETS, particularly for rare events; for example, when the base rate is 2% and the sample size is 1000, random but unbiased forecasting systems yield an expected score of around −0.5, reducing in magnitude to −0.01 or smaller only for sample sizes exceeding 25 000. This presents a problem since these nonlinear measures have other desirable properties, in particular being reliable indicators of skill for rare events (provided that the sample size is large enough). A potential way to reconcile these properties with equitability is to recognize that Gandin and Murphy’s two requirements are independent, and the second can be safely discarded without losing the key advantages of equitability that are embodied in the first. This enables inequitable and asymptotically equitable measures to be scaled to make them equitable, while retaining their nonlinearity and other properties such as being reliable indicators of skill for rare events. It also opens up the possibility of designing new equitable verification measures.

Item Type:Article
Refereed:Yes
Divisions:Faculty of Science > School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences > Department of Meteorology
ID Code:16253
Publisher:American Meteorological Society

Download Statistics for this item.

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Page navigation