Cherry-Picking in Time Series Forecasting: How to Select Datasets to Make Your Model Shine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of time series forecasting drives continuous research and the development of new approaches to tackle this problem. Typically, these methods are introduced through empirical studies that frequently claim superior accuracy for the proposed approaches. Nevertheless, concerns are rising about the reliability and generalizability of these results due to limitations in experimental setups. This paper addresses a critical limitation: the number and representativeness of the datasets used. We investigate the impact of dataset selection bias, particularly the practice of cherry-picking datasets, on the performance evaluation of forecasting methods. Through empirical analysis with a diverse set of benchmark datasets, our findings reveal that cherry-picking datasets can significantly distort the perceived performance of methods, often exaggerating their effectiveness. Furthermore, our results demonstrate that by selectively choosing just four datasets — what most studies report — 46% of methods could be deemed best in class, and 77% could rank within the top three. Additionally, recent deep learning-based approaches show high sensitivity to dataset selection, whereas classical methods exhibit greater robustness. Finally, our results indicate that, when empirically validating forecasting algorithms on a subset of the benchmarks, increasing the number of datasets tested from 3 to 6 reduces the risk of incorrectly identifying an algorithm as the best one by approximately 40%. Our study highlights the critical need for comprehensive evaluation frameworks that more accurately reflect real-world scenarios. Adopting such frameworks will ensure the development of robust and reliable forecasting methods.
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 | 0.062 | 0.274 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".