Summary. In the practice of point prediction, it is desirable that forecasters receive a directive in the form of a statistical functional. For example, forecasters might be asked to report the mean or a quantile of their predictive distributions. When evaluating and comparing competing forecasts, it is then critical that the scoring function used for these purposes be consistent for the functional at hand, in the sense that the expected score is minimized when following the directive. We show that any scoring function that is consistent for a quantile or an expectile functional can be represented as a mixture of elementary or extremal scoring functions that form a linearly parameterized family. Scoring functions for the mean value and probability forecasts of binary events constitute important examples. The extremal scoring functions admit appealing economic interpretations of quantiles and expectiles in the context of betting and investment problems. The Choquet-type mixture representations give rise to simple checks of whether a forecast dominates another in the sense that it is preferable under any consistent scoring function. In empirical settings it suffices to compare the average scores for only a finite number of extremal elements. Plots of the average scores with respect to the extremal scoring functions, which we call Murphy diagrams, permit detailed comparisons of the relative merits of competing forecasts.

Probabilistic forecasts in the form of probability distributions over future events have become popular in several fields including meteorology, hydrology, economics, and demography. In typical applications, many alternative statistical models and data sources can be used to produce probabilistic forecasts. Hence, evaluating and selecting among competing methods is an important task. The scoringRules package for R provides functionality for comparative evaluation of probabilistic models based on proper scoring rules, covering a wide range of situations in applied work. This paper discusses implementation and usage details, presents case studies from meteorology and economics, and points to the relevant background literature.

Summary In Bayesian inference, predictive distributions are typically in the form of samples generated via Markov chain Monte Carlo or related algorithms. In this paper, we conduct a systematic analysis of how to make and evaluate probabilistic forecasts from such simulation output. Based on proper scoring rules, we develop a notion of consistency that allows to assess the adequacy of methods for estimating the stationary distribution underlying the simulation output. We then provide asymptotic results that account for the salient features of Bayesian posterior simulators and derive conditions under which choices from the literature satisfy our notion of consistency. Importantly, these conditions depend on the scoring rule being used, such that the choices of approximation method and scoring rule are intertwined. While the logarithmic rule requires fairly stringent conditions, the continuous ranked probability score yields consistent approximations under minimal assumptions. These results are illustrated in a simulation study and an economic data example. Overall, mixture‐of‐parameters approximations that exploit the parametric structure of Bayesian models perform particularly well. Under the continuous ranked probability score, the empirical distribution function is a simple and appealing alternative option.

This paper shows entropic tilting to be a flexible and powerful tool for combining mediumterm forecasts from BVARs with short-term forecasts from other sources (nowcasts from either surveys or other models). Tilting systematically improves the accuracy of both point and density forecasts, and tilting the BVAR forecasts based on nowcast means and variances yields slightly greater gains in density accuracy than does just tilting based on the nowcast means. Hence entropic tilting can offer -more so for persistent variables than not-persistent variables -some benefits for accurately estimating the uncertainty of multi-step forecasts that incorporate nowcast information.

Motivated by the Basel 3 regulations, recent studies have considered joint forecasts of Value-at-Risk and Expected Shortfall. A large family of scoring functions can be used to evaluate forecast performance in this context. However, little intuitive or empirical guidance is currently available, which renders the choice of scoring function awkward in practice. We therefore develop graphical checks (Murphy diagrams) of whether one forecast method dominates another under a relevant class of scoring functions, and propose an associated hypothesis test. We illustrate these tools with simulation examples and an empirical analysis of S&P 500 and DAX returns.