MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3181414762 · doi:10.3390/engproc2021005049

Automatic Hierarchical Time-Series Forecasting Using Gaussian Processes

2021· article· en· W3181414762 on OpenAlexaff
Luís Roque, Luı́s Torgo, Carlos Soares

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicForecasting Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverfittingComputer scienceGaussian processSeries (stratigraphy)HyperparameterBayesian probabilityTime seriesHierarchyConstraint (computer-aided design)AlgorithmGaussianData miningArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematicsArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forecasting often involves multiple time-series that are hierarchically organized (e.g., sales by geography). In that case, there is a constraint that the bottom level forecasts add-up to the aggregated ones. Common approaches use traditional forecasting methods to predict all levels in the hierarchy and then reconcile the forecasts to satisfy that constraint. We propose a new algorithm that automatically forecasts multiple hierarchically organized time-series. We introduce a combination of additive Gaussian processes (GPs) with a hierarchical piece-wise linear function to estimate, respectively, the stationary and non-stationary components of the time-series. We define a flexible structure of additive GPs generated by each aggregated group in the hierarchy of the data. This formulation aims to capture the nested information in the hierarchy while avoiding overfitting. We extended the piece-wise linear function to be hierarchical by defining hyperparameters shared across related time-series. From our experiments, our algorithm can estimate hundreds of time-series at once. To work at this scale, the estimation of the posterior distributions of the parameters is performed using mean-field approximation. We validate the proposed method in two different real-world datasets showing its competitiveness when compared to the state-of-the-art approaches. In summary, our method simplifies the process of hierarchical forecasting as no reconciliation is required. It is easily adapted to non-Gaussian likelihoods and multiple or non-integer seasonalities. The fact that it is a Bayesian approach makes modeling uncertainty of the forecasts trivial.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.727
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.181
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicForecasting Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207