Another look at the contingency tables: Scores based on Manhattan distances in the phase space

Meteorological Applications

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 28-39

  Stein, Joël ^a  

^a MÉTÉO FRANCE   (France)

Author keywords

Contingency table; Equitability; Skill score; Verification

Indexed keywords

VERIFICATION; WEATHER FORECASTING;

CONTINGENCY TABLE; ECONOMICAL MODEL; EQUITABILITY; FALSE ALARMS; KEY FACTORS; MANHATTAN DISTANCE; QUANTITATIVE PRECIPITATION FORECAST; SKILL SCORE;

PHASE SPACE METHODS;

ECONOMETRICS; FORECASTING METHOD; NUMERICAL MODEL; PRECIPITATION (CLIMATOLOGY); TORNADO;

KANSAS; MANHATTAN; UNITED STATES;

EID: 79951821998     PISSN: 13504827     EISSN: 14698080     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/met.199     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Amodei M, Stein J. 2009. Deterministic and fuzzy verification methods for a hierarchy of numerical models. Meteorological Applications 16: 191-203.
2. Casati B, Wilson LJ, Stephenson DB, Nurmi P, Ghelli A, Pocernich M, Damrath U, Ebert EE, Brown BG, Mason S. 2008. Forecast verification: current status and future directions. Meteorological Applications 15: 3-18.
3. Desroziers G, Hello G, Thépaut JN. 2003. A 4D-Var re-analysis of FASTEX. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 129: 1301-1315.
4. Doswell CA III, Davies-Jones R, Keller DL. 1990. On summary measures of skill in rare event forecasting based on contingency tables. Weather and Forecasting 5: 576-585.
5. Ebert EE. 2008. Fuzzy verification of high-resolution gridded forecasts: a review and proposed framework. Meteorological Applications 15: 51-64.
6. Finley JP. 1884. Tornado predictions. American Meteorological Journal 1: 85-88.
7. Fischer C, Montmerle T, Berre L, Auger L, Stefanescu SE. 2005. An overview of the variational assimilation in the ALADIN/France numerical weather-prediction system. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 131: 3477-3492.
8. Gandin LS, Murphy AH. 1992. Equitable scores for categorical forecasts. Monthly Weather Review 120: 361-370.
9. Hamill TM. 1999. Hypothesis test for evaluating numerical precipitation forecasts. Weather and Forecasting 14: 155-167.
10. Hewson, T. 2007. The concept of 'Deterministic limit'. 3rd International Verification Methods Workshop, 31 January-2 February 2007, Reading, UK.
11. Jolliffe IT. 2008. The impenetrable hedge: a note on propriety, equitability and consistency. Meteorological Applications 15: 25-29.
12. Jolliffe IT, Stephenson DB. 2003. Forecast Verification. A Practitioner's Guide in Atmospheric Science. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK; 240.
13. JWGFVR. 2008. Forecast verification-Issues, methods, and FAQ. [Accessed 2008.].
14. Marzban C. 1998. Scalar measures of performance in rare-event situations. Weather and Forecasting 13: 753-763.
15. Mason IB. 2003. Binary events. In Forecast Verification. A Practitioner's Guide in Atmospheric Science, Jolliffe IT, Stephenson DB (eds). John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK; 240, 37-76.
16. Mason SJ, Weigel AP. 2009. A generic forecast verification framework for administrative purposes. Monthly Weather Review 137: 331-349.
17. Murphy AH. 1996. The Finley affair: a signal event in the history of forecast verification. Weather and Forecasting 11: 3-20.
18. Richardson DS. 2000. Skill and relative economic value of the ECMWF ensemble prediction system. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 126: 649-668.
19. Stephenson DB, Casati B, Castro CAT, Wilson CA. 2008. The extreme dependency score: A non-vanishing measure for forecast of rare events. Meteorological Applications 15: 41-50.
20. Wilks DS. 2006. Statistical Methods in Atmospheric Science, 2nd edn. Academic Press: Burlington, MA; 627.