Direction Augmentation in the Evaluation of Armed Conflict Predictions

Abstract

In many forecasting settings, there is a specific interest in predicting the sign of an outcome variable correctly in addition to its magnitude. For instance, when forecasting armed conflicts, positive and negative log-changes in monthly fatalities represent escalation and de-escalation, respectively, and have very different implications. In the ViEWS forecasting challenge, a prediction competition on state-based violence, a novel evaluation score called targeted absolute deviation with direction augmentation (TADDA) has therefore been suggested, which accounts for both for the sign and magnitude of log-changes. While it has a straightforward intuitive motivation, the empirical results of the challenge show that a no-change model always predicting a log-change of zero outperforms all submitted forecasting models under the TADDA score. We provide a statistical explanation for this phenomenon. Analyzing the properties of TADDA, we find that in order to achieve good scores, forecasters often have an incentive to predict no or only modest log-changes. In particular, there is often an incentive to report conservative point predictions considerably closer to zero than the forecaster's actual predictive median or mean. In an empirical application, we demonstrate that a no-change model can be improved upon by tailoring predictions to the particularities of the TADDA score. We conclude by outlining some alternative scoring concepts.