Findings from evidence-based forecasting: Methods for reducing forecast
error
Armstrong, J.S.
Pages 583-598
AbstractEmpirical comparisons of reasonable approaches provide evidence on the
best forecasting procedures to use under given conditions. Based on this
evidence, I summarize the progress made over the past quarter century with
respect to methods for reducing forecasting error. Seven well-established
methods have been shown to improve accuracy: combining forecasts and Delphi
help for all types of data; causal modeling, judgmental bootstrapping and
structured judgment help with cross-sectional data; and causal models and
trend-damping help with time series data. Promising methods for
cross-sectional data include damped causality, simulated interaction,
structured analogies, and judgmental decomposition; for time series data,
they include segmentation, rule-based forecasting, damped seasonality,
decomposition by causal forces, damped trend with analogous data, and
damped seasonality. The testing of multiple hypotheses has also revealed
methods where gains are limited: these include data mining, neural nets,
and Box-Jenkins methods. Multiple hypotheses tests should be conducted on
widely used but relatively untested methods such as prediction markets,
conjoint analysis, diffusion models, and game theory.
Keywords: Box-Jenkins
, Causal forces
, Causal models
, Combining forecasts
, Complex series
, Conjoint analysis
, Contrary series
, Damped seasonality
, Damped trend
, Data mining
, Delphi
, Diffusion
, Game theory
, Judgmental decomposition
, Multiple hypotheses
, Neural nets
, Prediction markets
, Rule-based forecasting
, Segmentation
, Simulated interaction
, Structured analogies