Precision and Reliability of Forecasts Performance Metrics
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 selection of an accurate performance metric is highly important to evaluate the quality of a forecasting method. This evaluation may help to select between different forecasting tools of forecasting outputs, and then support many decisions within a company. This paper proposes to evaluate the sensitivity and reliability of forecasts performance metrics. The methodology is tested using multiple time series of different scales and demand patterns, such as intermittent demand. The idea is to add to each series a noise following a known distribution to represent forecasting models of a known error distribution. Varying the parameters of the distribution of the noise allows to evaluate how sensitive and reliable performance metrics are to changes in bias and variance of the error of a forecasting model. The experiments concluded that sRMSE is more reliable than MASE in most cases on those series. sRMSE is especially reliable for detecting changes in the variance of a model and sPIS is the most sensitive metric to the bias of a model. sAPIS is sensible to both variance and bias but is less reliable.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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