The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The M4 Competition: Results, findings, conclusion and way forward
Abstract
The M4 competition is the continuation of three previous competitions started more than 45 years ago whose purpose was to learn how to improve forecasting accuracy, and how such learning can be applied to advance the theory and practice of forecasting. The purpose of M4 was to replicate the results of the previous ones and extend them into three directions: First significantly increase the number of series, second include Machine Learning (ML) forecasting methods, and third evaluate both point forecasts and prediction intervals. The five major findings of the M4 Competitions are: 1. Out Of the 17 most accurate methods, 12 were “combinations” of mostly statistical approaches. 2. The biggest surprise was a “hybrid” approach that utilized both statistical and ML features. This method’s average sMAPE was close to 10% more accurate than the combination benchmark used to compare the submitted methods. 3. The second most accurate method was a combination of seven statistical methods and one ML one, with the weights for the averaging being calculated by a ML algorithm that was trained to minimize the forecasting. 4. The two most accurate methods also achieved an amazing success in specifying the 95% prediction intervals correctly. 5. The six pure ML methods performed poorly, with none of them being more accurate than the combination benchmark and only one being more accurate than Naive2. This paper presents some initial results of M4, its major findings and a logical conclusion. Finally, it outlines what the authors consider to be the way forward for the field of forecasting.
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
Cited by
Recurrent Neural Networks for Time Series Forecasting: Current status and future directions
Hewamalage, H., Bergmeir, C., & Bandara, K. (2021) · International Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2020.06.008 · Cited by 1,371
A review of artificial neural network models for ambient air pollution prediction
Cabaneros, S. M., Calautit, J. K., & Hughes, B. R. (2019) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.06.014 · Cited by 459
Deep Learning for Time Series Forecasting: Tutorial and Literature Survey
Benidis, K., Rangapuram, S. S., Flunkert, V., Wang, Y., Maddix, D., Turkmen, C., Gasthaus, J., Bohlke-Schneider, M., Salinas, D., Stella, L., et al. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3533382 · Cited by 382
Younis, H. A., Ruhaiyem, N. I. R., Badr, A. A., Abdul-Hassan, A. K., Alfadli, I. M., Binjumah, W. M., Altuwaijri, E. A., & Nasser, M. (2023) · Processes · doi:10.3390/pr11051488 · Cited by 21
Quantifying machine influence over human forecasters
Abeliuk, A., Benjamin, D. M., Morstatter, F., & Galstyan, A. (2020) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-72690-4 · Cited by 18
“They found that general models, like the ARIMA one used in this work, perform the best across a wide array of problems, even in comparison to more complex machine learning models 68,69 .”
Method
Metadata
- Authors
- Makridakis, S., Spiliotis, E., & Assimakopoulos, V.
- Venue
- International Journal of Forecasting
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-10
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 802-808
- ISSN
- 0169-2070 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2808800115
- Cited by
- 629
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 49.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: The M4 Competition: Results, findings, conclusion and way forward. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2018.06.001
- The paper
- Makridakis, S., Spiliotis, E., & Assimakopoulos, V. (2018). The M4 Competition: Results, findings, conclusion and way forward. International Journal of Forecasting. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2018.06.001
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.