Criteria for Classifying Forecasting Methods
December 07, 2022 Β· Declared Dead Β· π International Journal of Forecasting
"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 Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Machine Learning (Stat)
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Layer Normalization
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Domain-Adversarial Training of Neural Networks
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Learning with Differential Privacy
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted