Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 1 of 1 items for :

  • Author or Editor: Daniel Murphy x
  • Weather and Forecasting x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search
Allan H. Murphy and Daniel S. Wilks


The traditional approach to forecast verification consists of computing one, or at most very few, quantities from a set of forecasts and verifying observations. However, this approach necessarily discards a large portion of the information regarding forecast quality that is contained in a set of forecasts and observations. Theoretically sound alternative verification approaches exist, but these often involve computation and examination of many quantities in order to obtain a complete description of forecast quality and, thus, pose difficulties in interpretation. This paper proposes and illustrates an intermediate approach to forecast verification, in which the multifaceted nature of forecast quality is recognized but the description of forecast quality is encapsulated in a much smaller number of parameters. These parameters are derived from statistical models fit to verification datasets. Forecasting performance as characterized by the statistical models can then be assessed in a relatively complete manner. In addition, the fitted statistical models provide a mechanism for smoothing sampling variations in particular finite samples of forecasts and observations.

This approach to forecast verification is illustrated by evaluating and comparing selected samples of probability of precipitation (PoP) forecasts and the matching binary observations. A linear regression model is fit to the conditional distributions of the observations given the forecasts and a beta distribution is fit to the frequencies of use of the allowable probabilities. Taken together, these two models describe the joint distribution of forecasts and observations, and reduce a 21-dimensional verification problem to 4 dimensions (two parameters each for the regression and beta models). Performance of the selected PoP forecasts is evaluated and compared across forecast type, location, and lead time in terms of these four parameters (and simple functions of the parameters), and selected graphical displays are explored as a means of obtaining relatively transparent views of forecasting performance within this approach to verification.

Full access