Forecasting daily COVID-19 cases with gradient boosted regression trees and other methods: evidence from U.S. cities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: There is a vast literature on the performance of different short-term forecasting models for country specific COVID-19 cases, but much less research with respect to city level cases. This paper employs daily case counts for 25 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in the U.S. to evaluate the efficacy of a variety of statistical forecasting models with respect to 7 and 28-day ahead predictions. Methods: This study employed Gradient Boosted Regression Trees (GBRT), Linear Mixed Effects (LME), Susceptible, Infectious, or Recovered (SIR), and Seasonal Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (SARIMA) models to generate daily forecasts of COVID-19 cases from November 2020 to March 2021. Results: Consistent with other research that have employed Machine Learning (ML) based methods, we find that Median Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) values for both 7-day ahead and 28-day ahead predictions from GBRTs are lower than corresponding values from SIR, Linear Mixed Effects (LME), and Seasonal Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (SARIMA) specifications for the majority of MSAs during November-December 2020 and January 2021. GBRT and SARIMA models do not offer high-quality predictions for February 2021. However, SARIMA generated MAPE values for 28-day ahead predictions are slightly lower than corresponding GBRT estimates for March 2021. Discussion: The results of this research demonstrate that basic ML models can lead to relatively accurate forecasts at the local level, which is important for resource allocation decisions and epidemiological surveillance by policymakers.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".