Position: There are no Champions in Long-Term Time Series Forecasting

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.14045v1
• Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 19:08:37 GMT
• Title: Position: There are no Champions in Long-Term Time Series Forecasting
• Authors: Lorenzo Brigato, Rafael Morand, Knut Strømmen, Maria Panagiotou, Markus Schmidt, Stavroula Mougiakakou,
• Abstract summary: We focus on the need to shift focus away from pursuing ever-more complex models and towards enhancing benchmarking practices. To support our claim, we first perform a broad, thorough, and reproducible evaluation of the top-performing models on the most popular benchmark by training 3,500+ networks over 14 datasets.
• Score: 0.0
• License:
• Abstract: Recent advances in long-term time series forecasting have introduced numerous complex prediction models that consistently outperform previously published architectures. However, this rapid progression raises concerns regarding inconsistent benchmarking and reporting practices, which may undermine the reliability of these comparisons. Our position emphasizes the need to shift focus away from pursuing ever-more complex models and towards enhancing benchmarking practices through rigorous and standardized evaluation methods. To support our claim, we first perform a broad, thorough, and reproducible evaluation of the top-performing models on the most popular benchmark by training 3,500+ networks over 14 datasets. Then, through a comprehensive analysis, we find that slight changes to experimental setups or current evaluation metrics drastically shift the common belief that newly published results are advancing the state of the art. Our findings suggest the need for rigorous and standardized evaluation methods that enable more substantiated claims, including reproducible hyperparameter setups and statistical testing.

Related papers

• Scenario-Wise Rec: A Multi-Scenario Recommendation Benchmark [54.93461228053298]
  We introduce our benchmark, textbfScenario-Wise Rec, which comprises 6 public datasets and 12 benchmark models, along with a training and evaluation pipeline. We aim for this benchmark to offer researchers valuable insights from prior work, enabling the development of novel models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-23T08:15:34Z)
• Recurrent Neural Goodness-of-Fit Test for Time Series [8.22915954499148]
  Time series data are crucial across diverse domains such as finance and healthcare. Traditional evaluation metrics fall short due to the temporal dependencies and potential high dimensionality of the features. We propose the REcurrent NeurAL (RENAL) Goodness-of-Fit test, a novel and statistically rigorous framework for evaluating generative time series models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T19:32:25Z)
• Revisiting BPR: A Replicability Study of a Common Recommender System Baseline [78.00363373925758]
  We study the features of the BPR model, indicating their impact on its performance, and investigate open-source BPR implementations. Our analysis reveals inconsistencies between these implementations and the original BPR paper, leading to a significant decrease in performance of up to 50% for specific implementations. We show that the BPR model can achieve performance levels close to state-of-the-art methods on the top-n recommendation tasks and even outperform them on specific datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-21T18:39:53Z)
• PerturBench: Benchmarking Machine Learning Models for Cellular Perturbation Analysis [14.526536510805755]
  We present a comprehensive framework for predicting the effects of perturbations in single cells, designed to standardize benchmarking in this rapidly evolving field. Our framework, PerturBench, includes a user-friendly platform, diverse datasets, metrics for fair model comparison, and detailed performance analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-20T07:40:20Z)
• PredBench: Benchmarking Spatio-Temporal Prediction across Diverse Disciplines [86.36060279469304]
  We introduce PredBench, a benchmark tailored for the holistic evaluation of prediction-temporal networks. This benchmark integrates 12 widely adopted methods with diverse datasets across multiple application domains. Its multi-dimensional evaluation framework broadens the analysis with a comprehensive set of metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-11T11:51:36Z)
• Forecasting with Deep Learning: Beyond Average of Average of Average Performance [0.393259574660092]
  Current practices for evaluating and comparing forecasting models focus on summarising performance into a single score. We propose a novel framework for evaluating models from multiple perspectives. We show the advantages of this framework by comparing a state-of-the-art deep learning approach with classical forecasting techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T12:28:22Z)
• Predictive Churn with the Set of Good Models [64.05949860750235]
  We study the effect of conflicting predictions over the set of near-optimal machine learning models. We present theoretical results on the expected churn between models within the Rashomon set. We show how our approach can be used to better anticipate, reduce, and avoid churn in consumer-facing applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-12T16:15:25Z)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)
• Consistent Counterfactuals for Deep Models [25.1271020453651]
  Counterfactual examples are used to explain predictions of machine learning models in key areas such as finance and medical diagnosis. This paper studies the consistency of model prediction on counterfactual examples in deep networks under small changes to initial training conditions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-06T23:48:55Z)
• Investigating Crowdsourcing Protocols for Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Summaries [59.27273928454995]
  Current pre-trained models applied to summarization are prone to factual inconsistencies which misrepresent the source text or introduce extraneous information. We create a crowdsourcing evaluation framework for factual consistency using the rating-based Likert scale and ranking-based Best-Worst Scaling protocols. We find that ranking-based protocols offer a more reliable measure of summary quality across datasets, while the reliability of Likert ratings depends on the target dataset and the evaluation design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-19T19:05:00Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.