arXiv Machine Learning By Md Rezwanul Islam, Wael Mohammed

Evaluation Choices Decide the Forecasting Leaderboard: Evidence from a Production Marketplace Panel

Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →

The paper demonstrates that the outcome of a forecasting leaderboard is largely determined by the evaluator’s design choices rather than the models themselves. By fixing the data, horizon, and period, the authors varied three key evaluation decisions—unit of analysis, error pooling, and scoring metric—and showed that each can reverse or eliminate the apparent superiority of any forecasting method. The study also evaluates the practical impact of these choices on a deployed system, revealing that the selection rule captures a significant portion of the potential performance gain, and confirms the findings on an external public dataset.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.

arXiv AI
Aug 17

Forecast Collapse in Time-Series Foundation Models

arXiv:2608. 14106v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: When forecasting hourly returns for 1,000 US equities, we observe an unexpected phenomenon: predictions become nearly flat and show poor stock ranking, as measured by cross-sectional correlation.

By Shu Wan, Miles Ma, Hank Zhu, Guangqi Liu, Stephen Wang, Qingsong Wen, Huan Liu