The Comparison of Single and Double Exponential Smoothing Models in Predicting Passenger Car Registrations in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to compare the two main variants of exponential smoothing methods in the context of business forecasting: Single Exponential Smoothing (SES) and Double Exponential Smoothing (DES). In this study, we applied these three methods to the data on Monthly Passenger Car Registrations in Canada from 2019 to 2022. The performance of each method was evaluated using Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) as the primary metric. The analysis results showed that Single Exponential Smoothing (SES) produced the best performance with the lowest RMSE of 13.07859 for an alpha of 0.6, compared to DES, which yielded higher RMSE values. These findings indicate that although DES have the capability to handle trends and seasonality, in some cases, especially when the data has single fluctuations without significant seasonal patterns or trends, SES can provide more accurate forecasting results. This study provides valuable insights for practitioners in selecting the most appropriate forecasting method based on the characteristics of the data at hand.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".