Evaluation Procedures for Forecasting with Spatiotemporal Data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing use of sensor networks has led to an ever larger number of available spatiotemporal datasets. Forecasting applications using this type of data are frequently motivated by important domains such as environmental monitoring. Being able to properly assess the performance of different forecasting approaches is fundamental to achieve progress. However, traditional performance estimation procedures, such as cross-validation, face challenges due to the implicit dependence between observations in spatiotemporal datasets. In this paper, we empirically compare several variants of cross-validation (CV) and out-of-sample (OOS) performance estimation procedures, using both artificially generated and real-world spatiotemporal datasets. Our results show both CV and OOS reporting useful estimates, but they suggest that blocking data in space and/or in time may be useful in mitigating CV’s bias to underestimate error. Overall, our study shows the importance of considering data dependencies when estimating the performance of spatiotemporal forecasting models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it