[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0266096.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Interval forecasts of weekly incident and cumulative COVID-19 mortality in the United States: A comparison of combining methods

Author

Listed:
  • Kathryn S Taylor
  • James W Taylor
Abstract
Background: A combined forecast from multiple models is typically more accurate than an individual forecast, but there are few examples of studies of combining in infectious disease forecasting. We investigated the accuracy of different ways of combining interval forecasts of weekly incident and cumulative coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) mortality. Methods: We considered weekly interval forecasts, for 1- to 4-week prediction horizons, with out-of-sample periods of approximately 18 months ending on 8 January 2022, for multiple locations in the United States, using data from the COVID-19 Forecast Hub. Our comparison involved simple and more complex combining methods, including methods that involve trimming outliers or performance-based weights. Prediction accuracy was evaluated using interval scores, weighted interval scores, skill scores, ranks, and reliability diagrams. Results: The weighted inverse score and median combining methods performed best for forecasts of incident deaths. Overall, the leading inverse score method was 12% better than the mean benchmark method in forecasting the 95% interval and, considering all interval forecasts, the median was 7% better than the mean. Overall, the median was the most accurate method for forecasts of cumulative deaths. Compared to the mean, the median’s accuracy was 65% better in forecasting the 95% interval, and 43% better considering all interval forecasts. For all combining methods except the median, combining forecasts from only compartmental models produced better forecasts than combining forecasts from all models. Conclusions: Combining forecasts can improve the contribution of probabilistic forecasting to health policy decision making during epidemics. The relative performance of combining methods depends on the extent of outliers and the type of models in the combination. The median combination has the advantage of being robust to outlying forecasts. Our results support the Hub’s use of the median and we recommend further investigation into the use of weighted methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Kathryn S Taylor & James W Taylor, 2022. "Interval forecasts of weekly incident and cumulative COVID-19 mortality in the United States: A comparison of combining methods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(3), pages 1-25, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0266096
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266096
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0266096
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0266096&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0266096?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Diebold, Francis X & Mariano, Roberto S, 2002. "Comparing Predictive Accuracy," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 20(1), pages 134-144, January.
    2. Fabio Busetti, 2017. "Quantile Aggregation of Density Forecasts," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 79(4), pages 495-512, August.
    3. Fotios Petropoulos & Spyros Makridakis, 2020. "Forecasting the novel coronavirus COVID-19," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-8, March.
    4. Claeskens, Gerda & Magnus, Jan R. & Vasnev, Andrey L. & Wang, Wendun, 2016. "The forecast combination puzzle: A simple theoretical explanation," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 754-762.
    5. Ioannidis, John P.A. & Cripps, Sally & Tanner, Martin A., 2022. "Forecasting for COVID-19 has failed," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 423-438.
    6. Johannes Bracher & Evan L Ray & Tilmann Gneiting & Nicholas G Reich, 2021. "Evaluating epidemic forecasts in an interval format," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-15, February.
    7. Li-Pang Chen & Qihuang Zhang & Grace Y Yi & Wenqing He, 2021. "Model-based forecasting for Canadian COVID-19 data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-18, January.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:2:p:130-143 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Gneiting, Tilmann & Raftery, Adrian E., 2007. "Strictly Proper Scoring Rules, Prediction, and Estimation," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 102, pages 359-378, March.
    10. Teresa K Yamana & Sasikiran Kandula & Jeffrey Shaman, 2017. "Individual versus superensemble forecasts of seasonal influenza outbreaks in the United States," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-17, November.
    11. Jeremy Smith & Kenneth F. Wallis, 2009. "A Simple Explanation of the Forecast Combination Puzzle," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 71(3), pages 331-355, June.
    12. Koning, Alex J. & Franses, Philip Hans & Hibon, Michele & Stekler, H.O., 2005. "The M3 competition: Statistical tests of the results," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 397-409.
    13. Robert L. Winkler & Yael Grushka-Cockayne & Kenneth C. Lichtendahl Jr. & Victor Richmond R. Jose, 2019. "Probability Forecasts and Their Combination: A Research Perspective," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 239-260, December.
    14. Anil Gaba & Ilia Tsetlin & Robert L. Winkler, 2017. "Combining Interval Forecasts," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 14(1), pages 1-20, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Petropoulos, Fotios & Apiletti, Daniele & Assimakopoulos, Vassilios & Babai, Mohamed Zied & Barrow, Devon K. & Ben Taieb, Souhaib & Bergmeir, Christoph & Bessa, Ricardo J. & Bijak, Jakub & Boylan, Joh, 2022. "Forecasting: theory and practice," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 705-871.
      • Fotios Petropoulos & Daniele Apiletti & Vassilios Assimakopoulos & Mohamed Zied Babai & Devon K. Barrow & Souhaib Ben Taieb & Christoph Bergmeir & Ricardo J. Bessa & Jakub Bijak & John E. Boylan & Jet, 2020. "Forecasting: theory and practice," Papers 2012.03854, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2022.
    2. Wang, Xiaoqian & Hyndman, Rob J. & Li, Feng & Kang, Yanfei, 2023. "Forecast combinations: An over 50-year review," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 1518-1547.
    3. Taylor, James W. & Taylor, Kathryn S., 2023. "Combining probabilistic forecasts of COVID-19 mortality in the United States," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(1), pages 25-41.
    4. Malte Knüppel & Fabian Krüger, 2022. "Forecast uncertainty, disagreement, and the linear pool," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(1), pages 23-41, January.
    5. Ray, Evan L. & Brooks, Logan C. & Bien, Jacob & Biggerstaff, Matthew & Bosse, Nikos I. & Bracher, Johannes & Cramer, Estee Y. & Funk, Sebastian & Gerding, Aaron & Johansson, Michael A. & Rumack, Aaron, 2023. "Comparing trained and untrained probabilistic ensemble forecasts of COVID-19 cases and deaths in the United States," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1366-1383.
    6. Li, Li & Kang, Yanfei & Li, Feng, 2023. "Bayesian forecast combination using time-varying features," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1287-1302.
    7. Benjamin Avanzi & Yanfeng Li & Bernard Wong & Alan Xian, 2022. "Ensemble distributional forecasting for insurance loss reserving," Papers 2206.08541, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2024.
    8. Makridakis, Spyros & Spiliotis, Evangelos & Assimakopoulos, Vassilios & Chen, Zhi & Gaba, Anil & Tsetlin, Ilia & Winkler, Robert L., 2022. "The M5 uncertainty competition: Results, findings and conclusions," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 1365-1385.
    9. Fabian Kruger & Hendrik Plett, 2022. "Prediction intervals for economic fixed-event forecasts," Papers 2210.13562, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    10. Martin, Gael M. & Loaiza-Maya, Rubén & Maneesoonthorn, Worapree & Frazier, David T. & Ramírez-Hassan, Andrés, 2022. "Optimal probabilistic forecasts: When do they work?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 384-406.
    11. Makridakis, Spyros & Spiliotis, Evangelos & Assimakopoulos, Vassilios, 2020. "The M4 Competition: 100,000 time series and 61 forecasting methods," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 54-74.
    12. Kang, Yanfei & Cao, Wei & Petropoulos, Fotios & Li, Feng, 2022. "Forecast with forecasts: Diversity matters," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 301(1), pages 180-190.
    13. Coroneo, Laura & Iacone, Fabrizio & Paccagnini, Alessia & Santos Monteiro, Paulo, 2023. "Testing the predictive accuracy of COVID-19 forecasts," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 606-622.
    14. Wang, Yudong & Hao, Xianfeng, 2022. "Forecasting the real prices of crude oil: A robust weighted least squares approach," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    15. Mark F. J. Steel, 2020. "Model Averaging and Its Use in Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 58(3), pages 644-719, September.
    16. Yang, Dazhi & van der Meer, Dennis, 2021. "Post-processing in solar forecasting: Ten overarching thinking tools," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    17. Sebastian M. Blanc & Thomas Setzer, 2020. "Bias–Variance Trade-Off and Shrinkage of Weights in Forecast Combination," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(12), pages 5720-5737, December.
    18. Roccazzella, Francesco & Gambetti, Paolo & Vrins, Frédéric, 2022. "Optimal and robust combination of forecasts via constrained optimization and shrinkage," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 97-116.
    19. Fabian Krüger & Ingmar Nolte, 2011. "Disagreement, Uncertainty and the True Predictive Density," Working Paper Series of the Department of Economics, University of Konstanz 2011-43, Department of Economics, University of Konstanz.
    20. Zhang, Hongwei & Zhao, Xinyi & Gao, Wang & Niu, Zibo, 2023. "The role of higher moments in predicting China's oil futures volatility: Evidence from machine learning models," Journal of Commodity Markets, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0266096. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.