Are forecasting competitions data representative of the reality?

Forecasters typically evaluate the performances of new forecasting methods by exploiting data from past forecasting competitions. Over the years, numerous studies have based their conclusions on such datasets, with mis-performing methods being unlikely to receive any further attention. However, it has been reported that these datasets might not be indicative, as they display many limitations. Since forecasting research is driven somewhat by data from forecasting competitions, it becomes vital to determine whether they are indeed representative of the reality or whether forecasters tend to over-fit their methods on a random sample of series. This paper uses the data from M4 as proportionate to the real world and compares its properties with those of past datasets commonly used in the literature as benchmarks in order to provide evidence on that question. The results show that many popular benchmarks of the past may indeed deviate from reality, and ways forward are discussed in response.     

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.     

MLP ensembles improve long term prediction accuracy over single networks

This work describes an award winning approach for solving the NN3 Forecasting Competition problem, focusing on the sound experimental validation of its main innovative feature. The NN3 forecasting task consisted of predicting 18 future values of 111 short monthly time series. The main feature of the approach was the use of the median for combining the forecasts of an ensemble of 15 MLPs to predict each time series. Experimental comparison to a single MLP shows that the ensemble increases the performance accuracy for multiple-step ahead forecasting. This system performed well on the withheld data, having finished as the second best solution of the competition with an SMAPE of 16.17%.     

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.     

Forecasting monthly and quarterly time series using STL decomposition

This paper is a re-examination of the benefits and limitations of decomposition and combination techniques in the area of forecasting, and also a contribution to the field, offering a new forecasting method. The new method is based on the disaggregation of time series components through the STL decomposition procedure, the extrapolation of linear combinations of the disaggregated sub-series, and the reaggregation of the extrapolations to obtain estimates for the global series. Applying the forecasting method to data from the NN3 and M1 Competition series, the results suggest that it can perform well relative to four other standard statistical techniques from the literature, namely the ARIMA, Theta, Holt-Winters’ and Holt’s Damped Trend methods. The relative advantages of the new method are then investigated further relative to a simple combination of the four statistical methods and a Classical Decomposition forecasting method. The strength of the method lies in its ability to predict long lead times with relatively high levels of accuracy, and to perform consistently well for a wide range of time series, irrespective of the characteristics, underlying structure and level of noise of the data.