predictive distribution
- Europe > Finland > Uusimaa > Helsinki (0.04)
- North America > United States > Colorado (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Uncertainty (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Statistical Learning (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Neural Networks > Deep Learning (1.00)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.14)
- South America > Paraguay > Asunción > Asunción (0.04)
- Europe > France (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- North America > United States (0.04)
- Europe > Germany > Bavaria > Upper Bavaria > Munich (0.04)
- Europe > Netherlands > North Holland > Amsterdam (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- Europe > Germany > Baden-Württemberg > Tübingen Region > Tübingen (0.04)
- Asia > Middle East > Jordan (0.04)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- Asia > Middle East > Jordan (0.04)
- Oceania > Australia (0.04)
- Europe > Germany > North Rhine-Westphalia > Upper Bavaria > Munich (0.04)
- Research Report > Experimental Study (1.00)
- Research Report > New Finding (0.93)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Uncertainty > Bayesian Inference (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Natural Language (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Statistical Learning (1.00)
- (3 more...)
- North America > Canada > Ontario > Toronto (0.14)
- Europe > Denmark (0.04)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > Boston (0.04)
- North America > United States > California (0.04)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Statistical Learning (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Neural Networks > Deep Learning (0.68)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning > Uncertainty > Bayesian Inference (0.67)
- North America > United States (0.67)
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Oxfordshire > Oxford (0.04)
- Europe > Italy > Calabria > Catanzaro Province > Catanzaro (0.04)
- Research Report > Experimental Study (1.00)
- Research Report > New Finding (0.92)
- Leisure & Entertainment (1.00)
- Government > Regional Government > North America Government > United States Government (0.67)
- Media > Film (0.67)
Intermittent time series forecasting: local vs global models
Damato, Stefano, Rubattu, Nicolò, Azzimonti, Dario, Corani, Giorgio
Intermittent time series, characterised by the presence of a significant amount of zeros, constitute a large percentage of inventory items in supply chain. Probabilistic forecasts are needed to plan the inventory levels; the predictive distribution should cover non-negative values, have a mass in zero and a long upper tail. Intermittent time series are commonly forecast using local models, which are trained individually on each time series. In the last years global models, which are trained on a large collection of time series, have become popular for time series forecasting. Global models are often based on neural networks. However, they have not yet been exhaustively tested on intermittent time series. We carry out the first study comparing state-of-the-art local (iETS, TweedieGP) and global models (D-Linear, DeepAR, Transformers) on intermittent time series. For neural networks models we consider three different distribution heads suitable for intermittent time series: negative binomial, hurdle-shifted negative binomial and Tweedie. We use, for the first time, the last two distribution heads with neural networks. We perform experiments on five large datasets comprising more than 40'000 real-world time series. Among neural networks D-Linear provides best accuracy; it also consistently outperforms the local models. Moreover, it has also low computational requirements. Transformers-based architectures are instead much more computationally demanding and less accurate. Among the distribution heads, the Tweedie provides the best estimates of the highest quantiles, while the negative binomial offers overall the best performance.
- North America > United States (0.04)
- Oceania > Australia > Victoria > Melbourne (0.04)
- Europe > Switzerland (0.04)