analiza aiqbench
This study exposes a critical misalignment in supply chain AI, demonstrating that standard point-accuracy metrics often fail to predict real-world service levels for intermittent demand. By analyzing bias direction rather than just error magnitude, the authors show how foundation models like Chronos-2 can be corrected without retraining to significantly improve order fulfillment rates. The release of a fidelity-certified synthetic dataset further ensures these findings are reproducible across different industrial contexts.
Accuracy Is Not Service: A Decision-Aware Benchmark for Intermittent-Demand Forecasting
arXiv:2609.13840v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A contract-logistics spare-parts operator is paid on order-level service: an order counts only if every requested line is fulfilled, yet forecasters are selected based on line-level forecast accuracy. This disconnect matters when demand is intermittent and lumpy, histories are short, and lead times span months. We benchmarked 38 forecasting methods spanning classical, intermittent-demand, machine-learning, deep-learning, and pretrained foundation models. A common decision-aware protocol evaluates them on an industrial panel drawn from a live contract and two public datasets. Forecast-accuracy rank and order-service rank are negatively correlated on the industrial panel, at -0.555, across methods evaluated on 20,330 real multi-item orders. Service is more closely associated with the direction of cumulative forecast bias, including over-prediction during zero-demand periods, than with point accuracy. Examining bias in Chronos-2's instance normalization yields a training-free correction that lifts the per-material fill proxy from 77.5% to 92.0% (14.5 percentage points) at the 90% policy target and raises the complete-order fill rate from 54% to 63%. For reproducibility, we release RUF (Regenerate-Until-Fidelity), a method for generating fidelity-certified synthetic panels on which the findings reproduce. For intermittent demand, the lowest-error forecast need not deliver the highest service. Bias direction helps explain this gap, which can be reduced without retraining.
Abstract:A contract-logistics spare-parts operator is paid on order-level service: an order counts only if every requested line is fulfilled, yet forecasters are selected based on line-level forecast accuracy. This disconnect matters when demand is intermittent and lumpy, histories are short, and lead times span months. We benchmarked 38 forecasting methods spanning classical, intermittent-demand, machine-learning, deep-learning, and pretrained foundation models. A common decision-aware protocol evaluates them on an industrial panel drawn from a live contract and two public datasets. Forecast-accuracy rank and order-service rank are negatively correlated on the industrial panel, at -0.555, across methods evaluated on 20,330 real multi-item orders. Service is more closely associated with the direction of cumulative forecast bias, including over-prediction during zero-demand periods, than with point accuracy. Examining bias in Chronos-2's instance normalization yields a training-free correction that lifts the per-material fill proxy from 77.5% to 92.0% (14.5 percentage points) at the 90% policy target and raises the complete-order fill rate from 54% to 63%. For reproducibility, we release RUF (Regenerate-Until-Fidelity), a method for generating fidelity-certified synthetic panels on which the findings reproduce. For intermittent demand, the lowest-error forecast need not deliver the highest service. Bias direction helps explain this gap, which can be reduced without retraining.
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2609.13840 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2609.13840v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.13840 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 295 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
State of the Field: AI for Epistemics and Coordination
LessWrong · 2 oct. 2026

Vertical Advantage: Transforming Industries with Lakebase and Agentic AI
Databricks · 27 aug. 2026

Evaluating multi-agent systems for explainability and helpfulness with Amazon Bedrock AgentCore
AWS · 5 oct. 2026
Links #5: 2026/07
LessWrong · 31 iul. 2026