M5 accuracy competition: Results,findings, and conclusions

In this study, we present the results of the M5 “Accuracy” competition, which was the first of two parallel challenges in the latest M competition with the aim of advancing the theory and practice of forecasting. The main objective in the M5 “Accuracy” competition was to accurately predict 42,840 time series representing the hierarchical unit sales for the largest retail company in the world by revenue, Walmart. The competition required the submission of 30,490 point forecasts for the lowest cross-sectional aggregation level of the data, which could then be summed up accordingly to estimate forecasts for the remaining upward levels. We provide details of the implementation of the M5 “Accuracy” challenge, as well as the results and best performing methods, and summarize the major findings and conclusions. Finally, we discuss the implications of these findings and suggest directions for future research.     

Evaluating quantile forecasts in the M5 uncertainty competition

Probabilistic forecasts are necessary for robust decisions in the face of uncertainty. The M5 Uncertainty competition required participating teams to forecast nine quantiles for unit sales of various products at various aggregation levels and for different time horizons. This paper evaluates the forecasting performance of the quantile forecasts at different aggregation levels and at different quantile levels. We contrast this with some theoretical predictions, and discuss potential implications and promising future research directions for the practice of probabilistic forecasting.     

The M5 competition: Background,organization, and implementation

The M5 competition follows the previous four M competitions, whose purpose is to learn from empirical evidence how to improve forecasting performance and advance the theory and practice of forecasting. M5 focused on a retail sales forecasting application with the objective to produce the most accurate point forecasts for 42,840 time series that represent the hierarchical unit sales of the largest retail company in the world, Walmart, as well as to provide the most accurate estimates of the uncertainty of these forecasts. Hence, the competition consisted of two parallel challenges, namely the Accuracy and Uncertainty forecasting competitions. M5 extended the results of the previous M competitions by: (a) significantly expanding the number of participating methods, especially those in the category of machine learning; (b) evaluating the performance of the uncertainty distribution along with point forecast accuracy; (c) including exogenous/explanatory variables in addition to the time series data; (d) using grouped, correlated time series; and (e) focusing on series that display intermittency. This paper describes the background, organization, and implementations of the competition, and it presents the data used and their characteristics. Consequently, it serves as introductory material to the results of the two forecasting challenges to facilitate their understanding.     

A white-boxed ISSM approach to estimate uncertainty distributions of Walmart sales

We present our solution for the M5 Uncertainty competition. Our solution ranked sixth out of 909 submissions across all hierarchical levels and ranked first for prediction at the finest level of granularity (product-store sales, i.e. SKUs). The model combines a multi-stage state-space model and Monte Carlo simulations to generate the forecasting scenarios (trajectories). Observed sales are modelled with negative binomial distributions to represent discrete over-dispersed sales. Seasonal factors are handcrafted and modelled with linear coefficients that are calculated at the store-department level.     

Exploring the representativeness of the M5 competition data

The main objective of the M5 competition, which focused on forecasting the hierarchical unit sales of Walmart, was to evaluate the accuracy and uncertainty of forecasting methods in the field to identify best practices and highlight their practical implications. However, can the findings of the M5 competition be generalized and exploited by retail firms to better support their decisions and operation? This depends on the extent to which M5 data is sufficiently similar to unit sales data of retailers operating in different regions selling different product types and considering different marketing strategies. To answer this question, we analyze the characteristics of the M5 time series and compare them with those of two grocery retailers, namely Corporación Favorita and a major Greek supermarket chain, using feature spaces. Our results suggest only minor discrepancies between the examined data sets, supporting the representativeness of the M5 data.     

The M4 Competition: Results,findings, conclusion and way forward

The M4 competition is the continuation of three previous competitions started more than 45 years ago whose purpose was to learn how to improve forecasting accuracy, and how such learning can be applied to advance the theory and practice of forecasting. The purpose of M4 was to replicate the results of the previous ones and extend them into three directions: First significantly increase the number of series, second include Machine Learning (ML) forecasting methods, and third evaluate both point forecasts and prediction intervals. The five major findings of the M4 Competitions are: 1. Out Of the 17 most accurate methods, 12 were “combinations” of mostly statistical approaches. 2. The biggest surprise was a “hybrid” approach that utilized both statistical and ML features. This method’s average sMAPE was close to 10% more accurate than the combination benchmark used to compare the submitted methods. 3. The second most accurate method was a combination of seven statistical methods and one ML one, with the weights for the averaging being calculated by a ML algorithm that was trained to minimize the forecasting. 4. The two most accurate methods also achieved an amazing success in specifying the 95% prediction intervals correctly. 5. The six pure ML methods performed poorly, with none of them being more accurate than the combination benchmark and only one being more accurate than Naïve2. This paper presents some initial results of M4, its major findings and a logical conclusion. Finally, it outlines what the authors consider to be the way forward for the field of forecasting.     

M5 competition uncertainty: Overdispersion,distributional forecasting,GAMLSS, and beyond

The M5 competition uncertainty track aims for probabilistic forecasting of sales of thousands of Walmart retail goods. We show that the M5 competition data face strong overdispersion and sporadic demand, especially zero demand. We discuss modeling issues concerning adequate probabilistic forecasting of such count data processes. Unfortunately, the majority of popular prediction methods used in the M5 competition (e.g. lightgbm and xgboost GBMs) fail to address the data characteristics, due to the considered objective functions. Distributional forecasting provides a suitable modeling approach to overcome those problems. The GAMLSS framework allows for flexible probabilistic forecasting using low-dimensional distributions. We illustrate how the GAMLSS approach can be applied to M5 competition data by modeling the location and scale parameters of various distributions, e.g. the negative binomial distribution. Finally, we discuss software packages for distributional modeling and their drawbacks, like the R package gamlss with its package extensions, and (deep) distributional forecasting libraries such as TensorFlow Probability.     

Predicting/hypothesizing the findings of the M5 competition

The scientific method consists of making hypotheses or predictions and then carrying out experiments to test them once the actual results have become available, in order to learn from both successes and mistakes. This approach was followed in the M4 competition with positive results and has been repeated in the M5, with its organizers submitting their ten predictions/hypotheses about its expected results five days before its launch. The present paper presents these predictions/hypotheses and evaluates their realization according to the actual findings of the competition. The results indicate that well-established practices, like combining forecasts, exploiting explanatory variables, and capturing seasonality and special days, remain critical for enhancing forecasting performance, re-confirming also that relatively new approaches, like cross-learning algorithms and machine learning methods, display great potential. Yet, we show that simple, local statistical methods may still be competitive for forecasting high granularity data and estimating the tails of the uncertainty distribution, thus motivating future research in the field of retail sales forecasting.     

Applicability of the M5 to Forecasting at Walmart

The M5 Forecasting Competition, the fifth in the series of forecasting competitions organized by Professor Spyros Makridakis and the Makridakis Open Forecasting Center at the University of Nicosia, was an extremely successful event. This competition focused on both the accuracy and uncertainty of forecasts and leveraged actual historical sales data provided by Walmart. This has led to the M5 being a unique competition that closely parallels the difficulties and challenges associated with industrial applications of forecasting. Like its precursor the M4, many interesting ideas came from the results of the M5 competition which will continue to push forecasting in new directions.In this article we discuss four topics around the practitioners view of the application of the competition and its results to the actual problems we face. First, we examine the data provided and how it relates to common difficulties practitioners must overcome. Secondly, we review the relevance of the accuracy and uncertainty metrics associated with the competition. Third, we discuss the leading solutions and their implications to forecasting at a company like Walmart. We then close with thoughts about a future M6 competition and further enhancements that can be explored.     

Fast and accurate yearly time series forecasting with forecast combinations

It has long been known that combination forecasting strategies produce superior out-of-sample forecasting performances. In the M4 forecasting competition, a very simple forecast combination strategy achieved third place on yearly time series. An analysis of the ensemble model and its component models suggests that the competitive accuracy comes from avoiding poor forecasts, rather than from beating the best individual models. Moreover, the simple ensemble model can be fitted very quickly, can easily scale horizontally with additional CPU cores or a cluster of computers, and can be implemented by users very quickly and easily. This approach might be of particular interest to users who need accurate yearly forecasts without being able to spend significant time, resources, or expertise on tuning models. Users of the R statistical programming language can access this modeling approach using the “forecastHybrid” package.     

Forecasting with gradient boosted trees: augmentation,tuning, and cross-validation strategies: Winning solution to the M5 Uncertainty competition

Deep neural networks and gradient boosted tree models have swept across the field of machine learning over the past decade, producing across-the-board advances in performance. The ability of these methods to capture feature interactions and nonlinearities makes them exceptionally powerful and, at the same time, prone to overfitting, leakage, and a lack of generalization in domains with target non-stationarity and collinearity, such as time-series forecasting. We offer guidance to address these difficulties and provide a framework that maximizes the chances of predictions that generalize well and deliver state-of-the-art performance. The techniques we offer for cross-validation, augmentation, and parameter tuning have been used to win several major time-series forecasting competitions—including the M5 Forecasting Uncertainty competition and the Kaggle COVID19 Forecasting series—and, with the proper theoretical grounding, constitute the current best practices in time-series forecasting.     

A solution for M5 Forecasting - Uncertainty: Hybrid gradient boosting and autoregressive recurrent neural network for quantile estimation

This paper presents our 13th place solution to the M5 Forecasting - Uncertainty challenge and compares it against GoodsForecast’s second-place solution. This challenge aims to estimate the median and eight other quantiles of various product sales in Walmart. Both solutions handle the predictions of median and other quantiles separately. Our solution hybridizes LightGBM and DeepAR in various ways for median and quantile estimation, based on the aggregation levels of the sales. Similarly, GoodsForecast’s solution also utilized a hybrid approach, i.e., LightGBM for point estimation and a Histogram algorithm for quantile estimation. In this paper, the differences between the two solutions and their results are highlighted. Despite our solution only taking 13th place in the challenge with the competition metric, it achieves the lowest average rank based on the multiple comparisons with the best (MCB) test which implies the most accurate forecasts in the majority of the series. It also indicates better performance at the product-store aggregation level which comprises 30,490 (71.2% of all) series compared to most teams.     

On the statistical differences between binary forecasts and real-world payoffs

We map the difference between (univariate) binary predictions, bets and “beliefs” (expressed as a specific “event” will happen/will not happen) and real-world continuous payoffs (numerical benefits/harm from an event) and show the effect of their conflation and mischaracterization in the decision-science literature. We also examine the differences under thin and fat tails. The effects: [A] Spuriousness of many psychological results, particularly those documenting that humans overestimate tail probabilities. We quantify such conflations. [B] Being a “good forecaster” in binary space doesn’t lead to having a good actual performance, and vice versa, especially under nonlinearities. A binary forecasting record is likely to be a reverse indicator under some classes of distributions or deeper uncertainty. [C] Machine Learning: Some nonlinear payoff functions, while not lending themselves to verbalistic expressions, are well captured by ML or expressed in option contracts. Fattailedness: The difference is exacerbated in the power law classes of probability distributions.     

Correlated daily time series and forecasting in the M4 competition

We participated in the M4 competition for time series forecasting and here describe our methods for forecasting daily time series. We used an ensemble of five statistical forecasting methods and a method that we refer to as the correlator. Our retrospective analysis using the ground truth values published by the M4 organisers after the competition demonstrates that the correlator was responsible for most of our gains over the naïve constant forecasting method. We identify data leakage as one reason for its success, due partly to test data selected from different time intervals, and partly to quality issues with the original time series. We suggest that future forecasting competitions should provide actual dates for the time series so that some of these leakages could be avoided by participants.     

Machine learning in M4: What makes a good unstructured model?

The Makridakis Competitions seek to identify the most accurate forecasting methods for different types of predictions. The M4 competition was the first in which a model of the type commonly described as “machine learning” has outperformed the more traditional statistical approaches, winning the competition. However, many approaches that were self-labeled as “machine learning” failed to produce accurate results, which generated discussion about the respective benefits and drawbacks of “statistical” and “machine learning” approaches. Both terms have remained ill-defined in the context of forecasting. This paper introduces the terms “structured” and “unstructured” models to better define what is intended by the use of the terms “statistical” and “machine learning” in the context of forecasting based on the model’s data generating process. The mechanisms that underlie specific challenges to unstructured modeling are examined in the context of forecasting, along with common solutions. Finally, the innovations in the winning model that allowed it to overcome these challenges and produce highly accurate results are highlighted.     

Random coefficient state-space model: Estimation and performance in M3–M4 competitions

The random coefficient state-space model was first introduced by McKenzie and Gardner (2010). This model is a stochastic combination of simple and double exponential smoothing, a desirable feature for time-series forecasting. This paper provides a simple method to estimate the random coefficient state-space model parameters by exploiting the link between the model’s autocovariance and the Kalman filter. A simulation exercise shows that the proposed estimator has good finite-sample properties. This paper also evaluates the model’s forecasting performance in large-scale empirical applications, which is remarkable. Indeed, this model outperforms all competing (not-combined) benchmarks when using the yearly data from the M3 competition dataset. Furthermore, employing the yearly data from the M4 competition, it continues to beat its competitors, with a performance comparable to that of the Theta method. The predictive performance is assessed using both the MASE/sMAPE metrics and the Model Confidence Set procedure.     

Kaggle forecasting competitions: An overlooked learning opportunity

We review the results of six forecasting competitions based on the online data science platform Kaggle, which have been largely overlooked by the forecasting community. In contrast to the M competitions, the competitions reviewed in this study feature daily and weekly time series with exogenous variables, business hierarchy information, or both. Furthermore, the Kaggle data sets all exhibit higher entropy than the M3 and M4 competitions, and they are intermittent.In this review, we confirm the conclusion of the M4 competition that ensemble models using cross-learning tend to outperform local time series models and that gradient boosted decision trees and neural networks are strong forecast methods. Moreover, we present insights regarding the use of external information and validation strategies, and discuss the impacts of data characteristics on the choice of statistics or machine learning methods. Based on these insights, we construct nine ex-ante hypotheses for the outcome of the M5 competition to allow empirical validation of our findings.     

The M4 Competition: 100,000 time series and 61 forecasting methods

The M4 Competition follows on from the three previous M competitions, the purpose of which was to learn from empirical evidence both how to improve the forecasting accuracy and how such learning could be used to advance the theory and practice of forecasting. The aim of M4 was to replicate and extend the three previous competitions by: (a) significantly increasing the number of series, (b) expanding the number of forecasting methods, and (c) including prediction intervals in the evaluation process as well as point forecasts. This paper covers all aspects of M4 in detail, including its organization and running, the presentation of its results, the top-performing methods overall and by categories, its major findings and their implications, and the computational requirements of the various methods. Finally, it summarizes its main conclusions and states the expectation that its series will become a testing ground for the evaluation of new methods and the improvement of the practice of forecasting, while also suggesting some ways forward for the field.     

石油企业服务营销策略研究

随着石油销售市场竞争日趋激烈,服务营销逐步成为石油销售企业的竞争利器。本文对石油销售企业服务营销现状进行了分析,指出了目前石油销售企业实施服务营销过程中存在的诸多问题。结合石油销售企业特色,提出相应策略,以期望通过对石油销售企业服务营销策略的提升,提高企业的核心竞争力,使企业在未来的竞争中处于优势地位。