Quantifying the Risk-Return Tradeoff in Forecasting

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.09712v1
• Date: Sun, 10 May 2026 19:21:12 GMT
• Title: Quantifying the Risk-Return Tradeoff in Forecasting
• Abstract summary: Average forecast accuracy is not the same as forecast reliability.<n>I treat forecast loss differentials relative to a benchmark as a return series.<n>I then evaluate these returns using risk-adjusted performance measures from finance, including the Sharpe ratio, Sortino ratio, Omega ratio, and drawdown-based metrics.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Average forecast accuracy is not the same as forecast reliability. I treat forecast loss differentials relative to a benchmark as a return series. I then evaluate these returns using risk-adjusted performance measures from finance, including the Sharpe ratio, Sortino ratio, Omega ratio, and drawdown-based metrics. I also introduce the Edge Ratio capturing a model's propensity to deliver uniquely informative predictions relative to the forecasting frontier. I apply this framework to U.S. macroeconomic forecasting, comparing econometric benchmarks, machine learning models, a foundation model (TabPFN), and the Survey of Professional Forecasters. While it is often feasible to beat professional forecasters in terms of average accuracy, it is much harder to beat them on a risk-adjusted basis. They rarely exhibit catastrophic failures and often achieve high Edge Ratios, plausibly reflecting the value of contextual judgment. Nonetheless, selected machine learning methods deliver attractive risk profiles for specific targets. The framework naturally extends to meta-analyses across targets, horizons, and samples, illustrated with a density forecast evaluation and the M4 competition.

Related papers

• Latent-Regime Bias Auditing for Volatility Forecasting [0.44333156307871585]
  This paper proposes a model-agnostic audit framework for evaluating whether volatility forecasts remain reliable across latent market regimes.<n>We learn time-series representations of market-state windows, cluster them into regimes using only training information, and compare aggregate forecast behavior with regime-conditional bias, tail-underprediction, and underprediction-sensitive economic losses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-03T02:09:39Z)
• FinBench: Time-Gated Calibration and Uncertainty Benchmarking for Agentic Financial Forecasting [0.0]
  FinBench is a benchmark designed to evaluate calibration and uncertainty quality for financial forecasting.<n>This paper describes the benchmark specification and reports a small pilot run as a sanity check of the pipeline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-24T01:27:30Z)
• TFRBench: A Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating Forecasting Systems [52.91956121737963]
  We introduce TFRBench, the first benchmark designed to evaluate the reasoning capabilities of forecasting systems.<n>We propose a systematic multi-agent framework that utilizes an iterative verification loop to synthesize numerically grounded reasoning traces.<n>Our evaluation confirms that this reasoning is causally effective; useful for evaluation; and prompting LLMs with our generated traces significantly improves forecasting accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T03:04:45Z)
• Forecast collapse of transformer-based models under squared loss in financial time series [0.0]
  We study trajectory forecasting under squared loss for time series with weak conditional structure.<n>We emphasize regimes in which the conditional expectation of future trajectories is effectively degenerate.<n>Increased model expressivity does not improve predictive accuracy but instead introduces spurious trajectory fluctuations around the optimal predictor.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-31T09:06:52Z)
• Beyond Accuracy: A Stability-Aware Metric for Multi-Horizon Forecasting [0.0]
  We introduce the forecast accuracy and coherence score (forecast AC score for short) for measuring the quality of probabilistic multi-horizon forecasts.<n>Results demonstrate substantial improvements over traditional maximum likelihood estimation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-15T21:26:57Z)
• Forecasting the U.S. Treasury Yield Curve: A Distributionally Robust Machine Learning Approach [0.12891210250935145]
  We study U.S. Treasury yield curve forecasting under distributional uncertainty.<n>Rather than minimizing average forecast error, the forecaster selects a decision rule that minimizes worst case expected loss.<n>We propose a distributionally robust ensemble forecasting framework that integrates factor models with high dimensional nonparametric machine learning models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-08T05:26:43Z)
• Uncertainty Quantification for Regression using Proper Scoring Rules [76.24649098854219]
  We introduce a unified UQ framework for regression based on proper scoring rules, such as CRPS, logarithmic, squared error, and quadratic scores.<n>We derive closed-form expressions for the uncertainty measures under practical parametric assumptions and show how to estimate them using ensembles of models.<n>Our broad evaluation on synthetic and real-world regression datasets provides guidance for selecting reliable UQ measures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T17:52:12Z)
• Enforcing tail calibration when training probabilistic forecast models [0.0]
  We study how the loss function used to train probabilistic forecast models can be adapted to improve the reliability of forecasts made for extreme events.<n>We demonstrate that state-of-the-art models do not issue calibrated forecasts for extreme wind speeds, and that the calibration of forecasts for extreme events can be improved by suitable adaptations to the loss function during model training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-16T16:51:06Z)
• Consistency Checks for Language Model Forecasters [54.62507816753479]
  We measure the performance of forecasters in terms of the consistency of their predictions on different logically-related questions.<n>We build an automated evaluation system that generates a set of base questions, instantiates consistency checks from these questions, elicits predictions of the forecaster, and measures the consistency of the predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-24T16:51:35Z)
• ExtremeCast: Boosting Extreme Value Prediction for Global Weather Forecast [57.6987191099507]
  We introduce Exloss, a novel loss function that performs asymmetric optimization and highlights extreme values to obtain accurate extreme weather forecast. We also introduce ExBooster, which captures the uncertainty in prediction outcomes by employing multiple random samples. Our solution can achieve state-of-the-art performance in extreme weather prediction, while maintaining the overall forecast accuracy comparable to the top medium-range forecast models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T10:34:13Z)
• Conservative Predictions on Noisy Financial Data [6.300716661852326]
  Price movements in financial markets are well known to be very noisy. Traditional rule-learning techniques would seek only high precision rules and refrain from making predictions where their antecedents did not apply. We apply a similar approach, where a model abstains from making a prediction on data points that it is uncertain on.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T09:14:19Z)
• Evaluating Probabilistic Classifiers: The Triptych [62.997667081978825]
  We propose and study a triptych of diagnostic graphics that focus on distinct and complementary aspects of forecast performance. The reliability diagram addresses calibration, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve diagnoses discrimination ability, and the Murphy diagram visualizes overall predictive performance and value.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-25T19:35:23Z)
• Learning to Predict Trustworthiness with Steep Slope Loss [69.40817968905495]
  We study the problem of predicting trustworthiness on real-world large-scale datasets. We observe that the trustworthiness predictors trained with prior-art loss functions are prone to view both correct predictions and incorrect predictions to be trustworthy. We propose a novel steep slope loss to separate the features w.r.t. correct predictions from the ones w.r.t. incorrect predictions by two slide-like curves that oppose each other.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-30T19:19:09Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.