Criteria for Classifying Forecasting Methods

December 07, 2022 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› International Journal of Forecasting

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Tim Januschowski, Jan Gasthaus, Yuyang Wang, David Salinas, Valentin Flunkert, Michael Bohlke-Schneider, Laurent Callot arXiv ID 2212.03523 Category stat.ML: Machine Learning (Stat) Cross-listed cs.LG Citations 207 Venue International Journal of Forecasting Last Checked 1 month ago
Abstract
Classifying forecasting methods as being either of a "machine learning" or "statistical" nature has become commonplace in parts of the forecasting literature and community, as exemplified by the M4 competition and the conclusion drawn by the organizers. We argue that this distinction does not stem from fundamental differences in the methods assigned to either class. Instead, this distinction is probably of a tribal nature, which limits the insights into the appropriateness and effectiveness of different forecasting methods. We provide alternative characteristics of forecasting methods which, in our view, allow to draw meaningful conclusions. Further, we discuss areas of forecasting which could benefit most from cross-pollination between the ML and the statistics communities.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Machine Learning (Stat)

R.I.P. πŸ‘» Ghosted

Graph Attention Networks

Petar VeličkoviΔ‡, Guillem Cucurull, ... (+4 more)

stat.ML πŸ› ICLR πŸ“š 24.7K cites 8 years ago
R.I.P. πŸ‘» Ghosted

Layer Normalization

Jimmy Lei Ba, Jamie Ryan Kiros, Geoffrey E. Hinton

stat.ML πŸ› arXiv πŸ“š 12.0K cites 9 years ago

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted