Strictly Proper Scoring Rules, Prediction, and Estimation
By Tilmann Gneiting, Adrian E. Raftery. 2007
6,677 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Atmospheric Science, Global and Planetary Change, Management Science and Operations Research, Evaluation & Benchmarks
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Atmospheric Science
- Thordis Linda Thorarinsdottir
- Michael Scheuerer
- Tilmann Gneiting
- Sebastian Lerch
- D. Wilks
- Petra Friederichs
- Achim Zeileis
- Pierre Pinson
In Global and Planetary Change
- Thordis Linda Thorarinsdottir
- Tilmann Gneiting
- Michael Scheuerer
- Sebastian Lerch
- Marc G. Genton
- Adrian E. Raftery
- Petra Friederichs
- Pierre Pinson
In Management Science and Operations Research
- Tilmann Gneiting
- James W. Taylor
- Rob J Hyndman
- Fotios Petropoulos
- Rafal Weron
- Francesco Ravazzolo
- Andrew J. Patton
- Todd E. Clark
In Evaluation & Benchmarks
- James W. Taylor
- Fotios Petropoulos
- Tilmann Gneiting
- Rob J Hyndman
- Marc G. Genton
- Rafal Weron
- Thomas Kneib
- Michael Scheuerer
Citations in the corpus
- f-GAN: Training Generative Neural Samplers using Variational Divergence Minimization (2016, methodology): “The advantage of VAEs is in the encoder model which allows efficient inference from observation to latent representation and overall they are a compelling alternative to f -GANs and recent work has studied combinations of the two approaches [23] As an alternative to the GAN training objective the wo”
- Demystifying MMD GANs (2018, methodology): “An insight comes from considering the score function associated with the energy distance, which we now briefly review (Gneiting & Raftery, 2007).”
- Classification Accuracy Score for Conditional Generative Models (2019, background): “Second, since the losses considered here are not proper scoring rules [38], one could obtain reasonable CAS from suboptimal inference networks.”
- How (not) to Train your Generative Model: Scheduled Sampling, Likelihood, Adversary? (2015, background): “In statistics, this property is referred to as strictly proper scoring rule estimation (Gneiting & Raftery, 2007).”
- Simple and Principled Uncertainty Estimation with Deterministic Deep Learning via Distance Awareness (2020, background): “To this end, a theoretically more well-founded uncertainty metric is to examine strictly proper scoring rules [25] s(.”
- High-Dimensional Multivariate Forecasting with Low-Rank Gaussian Copula Processes (2019, background): “(a) Effect of the number of evaluation samples ( num eval samples ) on the CRPS for electricity, solar, and taxi datasets.”
- A Spectral Energy Distance for Parallel Speech Synthesis (2020, positive): “As we show there, the analysis of Gneiting and Raftery [10, Theorem 5.1] can be used to show that this choice makes (8) a strictly proper scoring rule for learning q θ ( x | c ) with respect to the ground-truth conditional distribution over spectrograms, meaning that L GED ( q ) > L GED ( p ) for an”
- Measuring Calibration in Deep Learning (2019, background): “For example, Brier score measures the mean squared difference between the predicted probability and the actual outcome (Gneiting and Raftery, 2007).”
- Can You Trust Your Model's Uncertainty? Evaluating Predictive Uncertainty Under Dataset Shift (2019, background): “Each proper scoring rule is also associated with a corresponding entropy function and Shannon entropy is that for log probability (Gneiting & Raftery, 2007).”
- Posterior calibration and exploratory analysis for natural language processing models (2015, background): “These two loss functions are instances of proper scoring rules (Gneiting and Raftery, 2007; Bröcker, 2009).”
- Accurate Uncertainties for Deep Learning Using Calibrated Regression (2018, background): “The study of calibration originates in the statistics literature (Murphy, 1973; Dawid, 1984), mainly in the context of evaluating probabilistic forecasts using proper loss functions (Gneiting and Raftery, 2007).”
- The Cramer Distance as a Solution to Biased Wasserstein Gradients (2017, methodology): “As a replacement we propose the Cramér distance (Székely, 2002; Rizzo and Székely, 2016), also known as the continuous ranked probability score in the probabilistic forecasting literature (Gneiting and Raftery, 2007).”
- Training Agents using Upside-Down Reinforcement Learning (2019, methodology): “Using a loss function L , it can be estimated by solving the following SL problem: where Here len( τ ) is the length of any trajectory τ , and in general − L can be any proper score function [Gneiting and Raftery, 2007].”