Search

This paper summarizes an empirical comparison of the accuracy of forecasts included in analysis reports developed by professional intelligence analysts to comparable forecasts in a prediction market that has broad participation from across an intelligence community. To compare forecast accuracy, 99 event forecasts were extracted from qualitative descriptions found in 41 analysis reports and posted on the prediction market. Quantitative probabilities were imputed from the qualitative forecasts by asking seasoned professional analysts, who did not participate in the prediction market, to read the reports and to infer a quantitative probability based on what was written. These readers were also asked to provide their personal probabilities before and after reading the reports. There were two statistically significant results of particular interest. First, the primary result is that the prediction market forecasts were more accurate than the analysis reports. On average prediction market probabilities were 0.114 closer to ground truth than the analysis report probabilities. Second, in cases where analysts (readers) updated their personal probabilities in a direction opposite to what the reports implied, analysts tended to update their probabilities in the correct direction. This occurred even though, on average, reading the reports did not make readers more accurate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Brier score decompositions, including those attributed to Murphy and to Yates, provide popular metrics for estimating forecast performance attributes like calibration and discrimination. However, the decompositions are generally limited to situations where forecasters make successive forecast judgments against the same class of substantive event (e.g., rain vs. no rain). They do not readily translate to common situations where: forecasts are weighted unequally; forecasts can be made against a range of heterogeneous topics and events over varying time horizons; forecasts can be updated over time until an event occurs or an event deadline is reached; or outcome alternatives can vary in number and nature (e.g., ordered vs. unordered outcomes) across forecast questions. In this paper, we propose extensions of the Murphy and Yates decompositions to address these features. The extensions involve new analytic expressions for the decompositions of weighted Brier scores, along with proposed resampling methods. We use data from a recent forecasting tournament to illustrate the methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]