Preprint Article Version 2 Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed

Decide Now or Wait for the Next Forecast? A Decision Framework Based on an Extension of the Cost-Loss Model

Version 1 : Received: 13 February 2020 / Approved: 16 February 2020 / Online: 16 February 2020 (13:28:53 CET)
Version 2 : Received: 7 May 2020 / Approved: 8 May 2020 / Online: 8 May 2020 (04:28:30 CEST)

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

Journal reference: Monthly Weather Review 2021, 149, 1637-1650
DOI: 10.1175/MWR-D-20-0392.1


Users of meteorological forecasts are often faced with the question of whether to make a decision now based on the current forecast or whether to wait for the next and hopefully more accurate forecast before making the decision. One would imagine that the answer to this question should depend on the extent to which there is a benefit in making the decision now rather than later, combined with an understanding of how the skill of the forecast improves, and information about the possible size and nature of forecast changes. We extend the well-known cost-loss model for forecast-based decision making to capture an idealized version of this situation. We find that within this extended cost-loss model, the question of whether to decide now or wait depends on two specific aspects of the forecast, both of which involve probabilities of probabilities. For the special case of weather and climate forecasts in the form of normal distributions we derive a simulation algorithm, and equivalent analytical expressions, for calculating these two probabilities. We apply the algorithm to forecasts of temperature and find that the algorithm leads to better decisions relative to three simpler alternative decision-making schemes. Similar problems have been studied in many other fields, and we explore some of the connections.


cost-loss; forecast change; forecast volatility; decision making; expected utility; probabilistic forecasts; ensemble forecasts


EARTH SCIENCES, Atmospheric Science

Comments (1)

Comment 1
Received: 8 May 2020
Commenter: Stephen Jewson
Commenter's Conflict of Interests: Author
Comment: 1) We've described now connections to similar methods in other fields in more detail at various points in the article.
2) We've described an alternative solution method based on numerical integration rather than simulation
3) We've used a different data set for the example. The results are now much better and very clearly show that the method we describe leads to better decisions.

+ Respond to this comment

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 1
Metrics 0

Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.

We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here.