Forecasters priorities for improving probabilistic flood forecasts.

Hydrological ensemble prediction systems (HEPS) have in recent years been increasingly used for the operational forecasting of floods by European hydrometeorological agencies. The most obvious advantage of HEPS is that more of the uncertainty in the modelling system can be assessed. In addition, ensemble prediction systems generally have better skill than deterministic systems both in the terms of the mean forecast performance and the potential forecasting of extreme events. Research efforts have so far mostly been devoted to the improvement of the physical and technical aspects of the model systems, such as increased resolution in time and space and better description of physical processes. Developments like these are certainly needed; however, in this paper we argue that there are other areas of HEPS that need urgent attention. This was also the result from a group exercise and a survey conducted to operational forecasters within the European Flood Awareness System (EFAS) to identify the top priorities of improvement regarding their own system. They turned out to span a range of areas, the most popular being to include verification of an assessment of past forecast performance, a multi-model approach for hydrological modelling, to increase the forecast skill on the medium range (>3 days) and more focus on education and training on the interpretation of forecasts. In light of limited resources, we suggest a simple model to classify the identified priorities in terms of their cost and complexity to decide in which order to tackle them. This model is then used to create an action plan of short-, medium- and long-term research priorities with the ultimate goal of an optimal improvement of EFAS in particular and to spur the development of operational HEPS in general.

Forecasting with difference and trend stationary models

Although difference-stationary (DS) and trend-stationary (TS) processes have been subject to considerable analysis, there are no direct comparisons for each being the data-generation process (DGP). We examine incorrect choice between these models for forecasting for both known and estimated parameters. Three sets of Monte Carlo simulations illustrate the analysis, to evaluate the biases in conventional standard errors when each model is mis-specified, compute the relative mean-square forecast errors of the two models for both DGPs, and investigate autocorrelated errors, so both models can better approximate the converse DGP. The outcomes are surprisingly different from established results.

Economic forecasting: some lessons from recent research

This paper describes some recent advances and contributions to our understanding of economic forecasting. The framework we develop helps explain the findings of forecasting competitions and the prevalence of forecast failure. It constitutes a general theoretical background against which recent results can be judged. We compare this framework to a previous formulation, which was silent on the very issues of most concern to the forecaster. We describe a number of aspects which it illuminates, and draw out the implications for model selection. Finally, we discuss the areas where research remains needed to clarify empirical findings which lack theoretical explanations.

On SETAR non-linearity and forecasting

We compare linear autoregressive (AR) models and self-exciting threshold autoregressive (SETAR) models in terms of their point forecast performance, and their ability to characterize the uncertainty surrounding those forecasts, i.e. interval or density forecasts. A two-regime SETAR process is used as the data-generating process in an extensive set of Monte Carlo simulations, and we consider the discriminatory power of recently developed methods of forecast evaluation for different degrees of non-linearity. We find that the interval and density evaluation methods are unlikely to show the linear model to be deficient on samples of the size typical for macroeconomic data