• Graduate Programs
    • Tinbergen Institute Research Master in Economics
      • Why Tinbergen Institute?
      • Research Master
      • Admissions
      • PhD Vacancies
      • Selected PhD Placements
    • Facilities
    • Research Master Business Data Science
    • Education for external participants
    • Summer School
    • Tinbergen Institute Lectures
    • PhD Vacancies
  • Research
  • Browse our Courses
  • Events
    • Summer School
      • Applied Public Policy Evaluation
      • Deep Learning
      • Development Economics
      • Economics of Blockchain and Digital Currencies
      • Economics of Climate Change
      • The Economics of Crime
      • Foundations of Machine Learning with Applications in Python
      • From Preference to Choice: The Economic Theory of Decision-Making
      • Inequalities in Health and Healthcare
      • Marketing Research with Purpose
      • Markets with Frictions
      • Modern Toolbox for Spatial and Functional Data
      • Sustainable Finance
      • Tuition Fees and Payment
      • Business Data Science Summer School Program
    • Events Calendar
    • Events Archive
    • Tinbergen Institute Lectures
    • 2026 Tinbergen Institute Opening Conference
    • Annual Tinbergen Institute Conference
  • News
  • Summer School
  • Alumni
    • PhD Theses
    • Master Theses
    • Selected PhD Placements
    • Key alumni publications
    • Alumni Community

Diks, C., Panchenko, V. and \van Dijk\, D. (2011). Likelihood-based scoring rules for comparing density forecasts in tails Journal of Econometrics, 163(2):215--230.


  • Journal
    Journal of Econometrics

We propose new scoring rules based on conditional and censored likelihood for assessing the predictive accuracy of competing density forecasts over a specific region of interest, such as the left tail in financial risk management. These scoring rules can be interpreted in terms of Kullback-Leibler divergence between weighted versions of the density forecast and the true density. Existing scoring rules based on weighted likelihood favor density forecasts with more probability mass in the given region, rendering predictive accuracy tests biased toward such densities. Using our novel likelihood-based scoring rules avoids this problem.