The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluating epidemic forecasts in an interval format
Open accessAbstract
For practical reasons, many forecasts of case, hospitalization, and death counts in the context of the current Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic are issued in the form of central predictive intervals at various levels. This is also the case for the forecasts collected in the COVID-19 Forecast Hub(https://covid19forecasthub.org/). Forecast evaluation metrics like the logarithmic score, which has been applied in several infectious disease forecasting challenges, are then not available as they require full predictive distributions. This article provides an overview of how established methods for the evaluation of quantile and interval forecasts can be applied to epidemic forecasts in this format. Specifically, we discuss the computation and interpretation of the weighted interval score, which is a proper score that approximates the continuous ranked probability score. It can be interpreted as a generalization of the absolute error to probabilistic forecasts and allows for a decomposition into a measure of sharpness and penalties for over- and underprediction.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Strictly Proper Scoring Rules, Prediction, and Estimation
Gneiting, T., & Raftery, A. E. (2007) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1198/016214506000001437 · Cited by 5,793
Self-citationDiebold, F., & Mariano, R. (1994) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/t0169 · Cited by 5,185
Diebold, F. X., & Mariano, R. S. (1995) · Journal of Business & Economic Statistics · doi:10.1080/07350015.1995.10524599 · Cited by 5,130
Probabilistic Forecasts, Calibration and Sharpness
Gneiting, T., Balabdaoui, F., & Raftery, A. E. (2007) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9868.2007.00587.x · Cited by 1,783
Self-citationMaking and Evaluating Point Forecasts
Gneiting, T. (2011) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1198/jasa.2011.r10138 · Cited by 1,154
Self-citationDawid, A. P. (1984) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General) · doi:10.2307/2981683 · Cited by 1,085
Probabilistic energy forecasting: Global Energy Forecasting Competition 2014 and beyond
Hong, T., Pinson, P., Fan, S., Zareipour, H., Troccoli, A., & Hyndman, R. J. (2016) · International Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2016.02.001 · Cited by 1,044
The M4 Competition: 100,000 time series and 61 forecasting methods
Makridakis, S., Spiliotis, E., & Assimakopoulos, V. (2020) · International Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2019.04.014 · Cited by 969
Comparing Density Forecasts Using Threshold- and Quantile-Weighted Scoring Rules
Gneiting, T., & Ranjan, R. (2011) · Journal of Business & Economic Statistics · doi:10.1198/jbes.2010.08110 · Cited by 507
Self-citationPredictive Model Assessment for Count Data
Czado, C., Gneiting, T., & Held, L. (2009) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.1541-0420.2009.01191.x · Cited by 464
Self-citation
Cited by
Forecast combinations: An over 50-year review
Wang, X., Hyndman, R. J., Li, F., & Kang, Y. (2023) · International Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2022.11.005 · Cited by 280
Metadata
- Authors
- Bracher, J., Ray, E. L., Gneiting, T., & Reich, N. G.
- Venue
- PLOS Computational Biology
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2021-02-12
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e1008618
- ISSN
- 1553-734X (ISSN-L)
- 1553-7358
- OpenAlex
- W3031381838
- Cited by
- 285
- References
- 33
- FWCI
- 15.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluating epidemic forecasts in an interval format. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008618
- The paper
- Bracher, J., Ray, E. L., Gneiting, T., & Reich, N. G. (2021). Evaluating epidemic forecasts in an interval format. PLOS Computational Biology. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008618
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
