Off-topic for aiqbench
This story was gathered from a source we follow but falls outside AI and quantum coverage, so there is no aiqbench take for it.
Beyond a Universal Forecasting Selector: Demand-Conditioned Model Selection across Demand Patterns and Horizons
arXiv:2609.04425v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Forecasting-model selection remains difficult in heterogeneous demand because the most suitable decision rule may vary with demand structure, data availability, and forecasting horizon. This study examines whether the selector itself should be treated as a context-dependent component of the forecasting process. Five selection mechanisms - RMSSE, ERA, OWA, CCG-AHSC, and CCG-AHSCD - are compared across 24 optimized forecasting models, nine datasets, three training-testing partitions, and horizons from 1 to 12 cycles. Selector performance is evaluated ex post using Global Relative Accuracy (GRA), statistical tests, and a best-attainable-model reference. No selector dominates across all conditions. CCG-AHSC and CCG-AHSCD are more competitive for Smooth demand and several Erratic configurations, whereas OWA and ERA perform better in Intermittent and Lumpy settings. Selector suitability also changes with historical data availability and horizon, supporting a context-dependent rather than universal approach to forecasting-model selection.
Abstract:Forecasting-model selection remains difficult in heterogeneous demand because the most suitable decision rule may vary with demand structure, data availability, and forecasting horizon. This study examines whether the selector itself should be treated as a context-dependent component of the forecasting process. Five selection mechanisms - RMSSE, ERA, OWA, CCG-AHSC, and CCG-AHSCD - are compared across 24 optimized forecasting models, nine datasets, three training-testing partitions, and horizons from 1 to 12 cycles. Selector performance is evaluated ex post using Global Relative Accuracy (GRA), statistical tests, and a best-attainable-model reference. No selector dominates across all conditions. CCG-AHSC and CCG-AHSCD are more competitive for Smooth demand and several Erratic configurations, whereas OWA and ERA perform better in Intermittent and Lumpy settings. Selector suitability also changes with historical data availability and horizon, supporting a context-dependent rather than universal approach to forecasting-model selection.
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2609.04425 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2609.04425v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.04425 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 232 words
Related coverage

News
Quantum Computing Report · Jul 25, 2026

The Entangled Dimensions of Decision Theory
LessWrong · Jul 30, 2026
Tower Semiconductor with METI Support Announces Strategic Capacity Expansion in Japan
Tower Semiconductor · Jul 14, 2026

Forbes Asia 100 To Watch 2026
forbes.com · Aug 24, 2026