Good randomized sequential probability forecasting is always possible

60 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Testing Multiple Forecasters (2008, unknown): “This negative result has been extensively generalized to many other classes of tests by Kalai, Lehrer, and Smorodinsky (1999); Fudenberg and Levine (1999); Lehrer (2001); Sandroni, Smorodinsky, and Vohra (2003); Sandroni (2003); and Vovk and Shafer (2005).”
Probabilistic forecasts, calibration and sharpness (2007, background): “The progress is impressive and culminates in the elegant game theoretic approach of Vovk and Shafer (2005) .”
Manipulability of Future‐Independent Tests (2008, background): “…being rejected by some empirical tests is not novel and can be found in a number of papers (see Foster and Vohra (1998), Fudenberg and Levine (1999), Lehrer (2001), Sandroni (2003), Sandroni, Smorodinsky and Vohra (2003), Vovk and Shafer (2005), and Olszewski and Sandroni (2007b) and (2007c)).”
Prediction, learning, and games (2006, background): “5 has been strengthened by Lehrer [194], Sandroni, Smorodinsky, and Vohra [259], and Vovk and Shafer [301].”