Re:Reverse-engineering the problematic tail behavior of Five...
by ceilingcorner on Sunday October 25, 2020 @01:02PM
(#24887775)
No, but it means that the weatherman isn't particularly effective at forecasting the weather.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Reverse-engineering the problematic tail behavior of Five...
by bart_spoon on Sunday October 25, 2020 @01:22PM
(#24887960)
No it doesn’t, and this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how probabilistic forecasting works. If it rains 9 out of 10 times a weatherman says there is a 30% chance of rain, they are a bad weatherman, but they aren’t much worse than if it rained 0 out of 10 times they predicted a 30% chance of rain. A weatherman accurately assessing the probability of the weather forecast would see it rain around 3 out of 10 days they say there is a 30% chance of rain.
Re:Reverse-engineering the problematic tail behavior of Five...
by noirbot on Sunday October 25, 2020 @01:10PM
(#24887859)
Only if they say that every day, and it rains every day. If the most likely outcome happened every time, then the model is likely wrong/under-confident. The prediction is never going to be 100% accurate until the event is happening/has happened. Up until then, there's always a chance you're wrong or something can change. Being wrong once isn't necessarily a sign that the whole system is messed up.