Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This methodology integrates risk preferences into forecast selection, enhancing accuracy for various risk profiles.
This paper introduces a methodology for incorporating risk preferences directly into forecasting model selection. The relative model information score, estimated from either a point-based information criterion or cross-validated errors, leverages the full distribution to map different risk propensities. We show that standard model selection in the literature is risk-agnostic. A risk-neutral stance is represented by the median of the relative model information score distribution, which characterises the plausibility of a model choice, while risk-averse and risk-tolerant choices correspond to its upper and lower quantiles. Our empirical evaluation demonstrates that risk-neutral and risk-averse selections consistently outperform the benchmark risk-agnostic choice in both point and quantile forecast accuracy. Moreover, we show that a risk-tolerant selection is beneficial during periods of extreme disruption. The proposed methodology provides a robust and flexible way to manage the forecast modelling risk, improving forecast accuracy and aligning forecasting modelling with stakeholders’ risk profiles.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kourentzes et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: