The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluating time series forecasting models: an empirical study on performance estimation methods
Open accessAbstract
Performance estimation aims at estimating the loss that a predictive model will incur on unseen data. This process is a fundamental stage in any machine learning project. In this paper we study the application of these methods to time series forecasting tasks. For independent and identically distributed data the most common approach is cross-validation. However, the dependency among observations in time series raises some caveats about the most appropriate way to estimate performance in this type of data. Currently, there is no consensual approach. We contribute to the literature by presenting an extensive empirical study which compares different performance estimation methods for time series forecasting tasks. These methods include variants of cross-validation, out-of-sample (holdout), and prequential approaches. Two case studies are analysed: One with 174 real-world time series and another with three synthetic time series. Results show noticeable differences in the performance estimation methods in the two scenarios. In particular, empirical experiments suggest that blocked cross-validation can be applied to stationary time series. However, when the time series are non-stationary, the most accurate estimates are produced by out-of-sample methods, particularly the holdout approach repeated in multiple testing periods.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso
Tibshirani, R. (1996) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1996.tb02080.x · Cited by 51,482
UCI Machine Learning Repository
Asuncion, A. (2007) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 24,155
Classification and Regression Trees.
Gordon, A. D., Breiman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R. A., & Stone, C. J. (1984) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2530946 · Cited by 23,522
(2005) · Statistics for Biology and Health · doi:10.1007/0-387-27255-0_9 · Cited by 20,133
Regularization Paths for Generalized Linear Models via Coordinate Descent
Friedman, J., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v033.i01 · Cited by 19,927
Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root
Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C. B., Schmidt, P., & Shin, Y. (1992) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/0304-4076(92)90104-y · Cited by 12,633
Classification And Regression Trees
Breiman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R. A., & Stone, C. J. (2017) · doi:10.1201/9781315139470 · Cited by 11,417
Detecting strange attractors in turbulence
Takens, F. (1981) · Lecture Notes in Mathematics · doi:10.1007/bfb0091924 · Cited by 10,459
Time Series: Theory and Methods
Ziegel, E. R., Brockwell, P., & Davis, R. (1992) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270070 · Cited by 5,012
Metadata
- Authors
- Cerqueira, V., Torgo, L., & Mozetič, I.
- Venue
- Machine Learning
- Published
- 2020-10-13
- Volume
- 109
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1997-2028
- ISSN
- 0885-6125 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-0565
- OpenAlex
- W2947014533
- Cited by
- 485
- References
- 48
- FWCI
- 20.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluating time series forecasting models: an empirical study on performance estimation methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10994-020-05910-7
- The paper
- Cerqueira, V., Torgo, L., & Mozetič, I. (2020). Evaluating time series forecasting models: an empirical study on performance estimation methods. Machine Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-020-05910-7
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.