Claim C3 · descriptive · entrylib:2026.000001@v3 · 2026-11-10

Corrected · 10 November 2026 at 13:47 UTC

The test quantities of the claims bound result entries that version 2 had turned into table cells; they now bind the cells, which keep the full precision the verdicts were computed at, and each table names the CSV of the lab results (A10) as its source. The defining equations of D1, D4, D11 and D13 are set as displayed equations.

By Ivan Svetunkov (ORCID 0000-0001-7826-0281)

Calibration of the prediction intervals of AutoMSARIMA in smooth on M1, M3, Tourism and M4 · C3

Principal claim C3 of this claimset (Svetunkov, I. (guarantor), 2026), with what it rests on. Read the whole claimset.

Copies a message for ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini: paste it there.

The message

Read https://entrylib.org/p/2026.000001/C3, one claim of a research paper with the evidence it rests on. Tell me briefly what it says and how well it is supported. If you cannot open the link, tell me instead of guessing. Then wait for my questions.

The claim

78C3 · descriptive · planned test · novelty: new, by the authors · no close match on EntryLib

On the M4 sample, the log-normal ARIMA with the orders AutoMSARIMA selects removes the fall of 80% coverage over the level terciles (0.774, 0.783 and 0.752, a spread of 0.031) and lowers MCE from 0.0386 to 0.0177.

83C2 · descriptive · planned test · novelty: new, by the authors · no close match on EntryLib

On the M4 sample, the 80% coverage of AutoMSARIMA falls with the level ratio: 0.813, 0.700 and 0.554 from the lowest to the highest of the level terciles, while ETS(MNN) of ETS forced and selected, whose error scale follows the level, covers 0.764, 0.778 and 0.814.

Claims it rests on

97C8 · descriptive · novelty: new, by the authors

On the 5,315 benchmark series, the fall of 80% coverage over the level terciles is shared by AutoMSARIMA (0.786, 0.668, 0.590) and the other ARIMA implementations: statsforecast AutoARIMA (0.789, 0.667, 0.589), pmdarima (0.770, 0.635, 0.582) and skforecast (0.781, 0.658, 0.585).

Evidence

E8 · quant · benchmark · cited by C2

AutoMSARIMA with backcasting and ETS(MNN) fitted to every series of the M4 sample; cov80 per level terciles (run RN41, plan PL12).

E8.T1 · AutoMSARIMA and ETS(MNN) on the M4 sample (data: M4 sample)
Rowmethodcoverage (nominal level: 0.8)MCEcoverage (nominal level: 0.8, level terciles: low)coverage (nominal level: 0.8, level terciles: mid)coverage (nominal level: 0.8, level terciles: high)80% coverage in the low tercile minus that in the high tercileshare of holdout observations at or below the 0.5 quantile
r1AutoMSARIMA0.68890.03860.81280.69950.55440.2585
r2ETS(MNN)0.78540.08480.7640.77790.8142-0.05020.3723

E9 · quant · benchmark · cited by C3

AutoMSARIMA and the log-normal ARIMA with the same selected orders on the M4 sample; MCE and cov80 per level terciles (run RN42, plan PL13).

E9.T1 · AutoMSARIMA and the log-normal ARIMA with the same orders on the M4 sample (data: M4 sample)
RowmethodMCEscaled pinball (median)range of the 80% coverage over the level tercilescoverage (nominal level: 0.8)coverage (nominal level: 0.8, level terciles: low)coverage (nominal level: 0.8, level terciles: mid)coverage (nominal level: 0.8, level terciles: high)
r1AutoMSARIMA0.03860.67520.2585
r2log-normal ARIMA0.01770.76790.03110.76980.77420.78320.7521

E13 · quant · benchmark · cited by C8

Coverage by level terciles on the 5,315 benchmark series for AutoMSARIMA with backcasting (refitted) and for the other ARIMA implementations (saved forecasts of the smooth benchmark of 2026-11-05); and coverage of ETS and ARIMA on the series where the selected ETS(ANN) of ETS forced and selected and the selected ARIMA(0,1,1) give the same forecast and width (exploratory run RN15).

E13.T1 · 80% coverage by level tercile of AutoMSARIMA and the other ARIMA implementations on the benchmark (data: benchmark)
Rowmethodcoverage (nominal level: 0.8, level terciles: low)coverage (nominal level: 0.8, level terciles: mid)coverage (nominal level: 0.8, level terciles: high)
r1AutoMSARIMA0.78620.66770.5897
r2statsforecast AutoARIMA0.78910.66720.5893
r3pmdarima auto_arima0.77020.63540.5825
r4skforecast Arima0.78090.65780.5854
E13.T2 · Series of the benchmark where the selected ETS(ANN) and the selected ARIMA(0,1,1) give the same forecast and width (data: benchmark)
Rowmethodseriescoverage (nominal level: 0.8)
r1both114
r2ETS0.7336
r3ARIMA0.7336

Limitations

L2 · other · reduces precision · affects C2, C3, C4 · mitigation: none

The lab record flags plans PL11, PL12 and PL13 with code changed after the plan; the only commit between those plans and their runs updated the claimset skills under .claude/skills, not the analysis scripts.

L3 · measurement · reduces transferability · affects C2 · mitigation: none

ETS(MNN), the comparator whose coverage stays flat over the level terciles on M4, is badly centred there (q50 of 0.372) and has an MCE of 0.0849, so its flat cov80 does not make it well calibrated.

Assumptions

C25 · data · unchecked

The ratio of the mean of the last third of a series to its overall mean indexes how much the scale of its errors at the forecast origin exceeds the average scale over the sample. Rested on by C2, C8.

Definitions

Methods 5

D1 MSARIMA analytic interval: The quantiles of predict(interval="prediction") of a pure ARIMA in smooth 1.3.0, which dispatches to the approximate interval. The ARIMA is the state space model yt=w⊤vt−l+ϵt,vt=Fvt−l+gϵt,ϵt∼N(0,σ2).\begin{aligned} y_t &= w^\top v_{t-l} + \epsilon_t, \\ v_t &= F v_{t-l} + g \epsilon_t, \\ \epsilon_t &\sim N(0, \sigma^2). \end{aligned} The quantile at level τ\tau and horizon hh is qτ,h=y^T+h|T+Φ−1(τ)Vh,Vh=σ^2TT−kch,q_{\tau,h} = \hat y_{T+h|T} + \Phi^{-1}(\tau) \sqrt{V_h}, \qquad V_h = \hat\sigma^2 \frac{T}{T-k} c_h, with σ^2=1T∑t=1Tet2,ch=1+∑j=1h−1(w⊤Fj−1g)2,\hat\sigma^2 = \frac{1}{T} \sum_{t=1}^{T} e_t^2, \qquad c_h = 1 + \sum_{j=1}^{h-1} \left(w^\top F^{j-1} g\right)^2, where kk is the number of estimated parameters and chc_h the hh-th diagonal element of the analytic covariance of the state space model, written here for a model with lag 1. Source: Svetunkov (2023).

D10 AutoMSARIMA: AutoMSARIMA(lags, initial) in Python and auto.msarima() in R of smooth 1.3.0 / 4.6: ARIMA orders up to AR (3,3), I (2,1), MA (3,3) and a constant selected by AICc, normal errors, the MSARIMA analytic interval for the quantiles. Backcasting initial states unless stated. Source: Svetunkov (2023).

D11 log-normal ARIMA: ADAM with model="NNN", an ARIMA and distribution="dlnorm": the ARIMA applies to the logarithms, log⁡yt=w⊤vt−l+log⁡(1+ϵt),vt=Fvt−l+glog⁡(1+ϵt),1+ϵt∼logN(−σ2/2,σ2),\begin{aligned} \log y_t &= w^\top v_{t-l} + \log(1+\epsilon_t), \\ v_t &= F v_{t-l} + g \log(1+\epsilon_t), \\ 1+\epsilon_t &\sim \mathrm{logN}(-\sigma^2/2, \sigma^2), \end{aligned} so the scale of the error is proportional to the level. In the comparisons with fixed orders, the orders and constant are those AutoMSARIMA selects on the same series. Source: Svetunkov (2023).

D15 ETS forced and selected: ETS of smooth with backcasting: AutoADAM-style selection among ETS models (ES(model="ZXZ"), or ZXN for non-seasonal series), or ETS(ANN) or ETS(MNN) fitted to every series. Source: Svetunkov (2023).

D16 other ARIMA implementations: statsforecast AutoARIMA, pmdarima auto_arima and skforecast Arima, as run in the notebook of the smooth benchmark of 2026-11-05, whose saved forecasts were read.

Data 5

D5 benchmark: The 5,315 series of M1 (1,001), M3 (3,003) and Tourism (1,311) from fcompdata 0.1.4, with their own holdouts and seasonal periods; lags (1,m)(1, m) for seasonal series. Members: D18, D19, D20.

D6 M4 sample: 1,500 series each of the yearly, quarterly and monthly M4 series, drawn with seed 20261105 without replacement, with the M4 holdouts. Source: Makridakis et al. (2020).

D18 M1: The 1,001 series of the M1 competition with their holdouts. Source: Makridakis et al. (1982).

D19 M3: The 3,003 series of the M3 competition with their holdouts. Source: Makridakis and Hibon (2000).

D20 Tourism: The 1,311 series of the tourism forecasting competition with their holdouts. Source: Athanasopoulos et al. (2011).

Variables and measures 4

D4 coverage: For the quantile qτ,jq_{\tau,j} at level τ\tau and horizon jj, the share of holdout observations at or below it, cτ=1h∑j=1h1(yT+j≤qτ,j),c_\tau = \frac{1}{h} \sum_{j=1}^{h} 1\left(y_{T+j} \le q_{\tau,j}\right), averaged first within a series and then over series. cov80 is c0.9−c0.1c_{0.9} - c_{0.1}, the coverage of the central 80% interval; q50 is c0.5c_{0.5}.

D13 MCE: Mean calibration error over the 99 quantile levels τ=0.01,…,0.99\tau = 0.01, \dots, 0.99: MCE=199∑τ|c¯τ−τ|,\mathrm{MCE} = \frac{1}{99} \sum_{\tau} \left|\bar c_\tau - \tau\right|, with c¯τ\bar c_\tau the coverage of qτq_\tau.

D14 scaled pinball: Pinball loss averaged over the 99 quantile levels and the horizons, divided by the mean absolute first difference of the in-sample data for real series; in the simulation, by σ\sigma, and relpin is its ratio to the pinball of the true predictive distribution.

D17 level ratio: Mean of the last third of the in-sample data of a series divided by the mean of all its in-sample data.

Study design 1

D7 level terciles: Series split into terciles of the level ratio across the series of a data set; cov80 reported for each tercile, and the spread as the largest minus the smallest of the three.

Context

Addresses B5 · from C2
Chatfield discusses why intervals are too narrow in general; this locates the shortfall of one implementation on series whose level has grown.

References

  1. Makridakis et al. (1982) Makridakis, S., Andersen, A., Carbone, R., Fildes, R., Hibon, M., Lewandowski, R., Newton, J., Parzen, E., & Winkler, R. (1982). The accuracy of extrapolation (time series) methods: Results of a forecasting competition. Journal of Forecasting, 1(2), 111–153. doi:10.1002/for.3980010202 Used by: D18
  2. Makridakis and Hibon (2000) Makridakis, S., & Hibon, M. (2000). The M3-Competition: results, conclusions and implications. International Journal of Forecasting, 16(4), 451–476. doi:10.1016/S0169-2070(00)00057-1 Used by: D19
  3. Athanasopoulos et al. (2011) Athanasopoulos, G., Hyndman, R. J., Song, H., & Wu, D. C. (2011). The tourism forecasting competition. International Journal of Forecasting, 27(3), 822–844. doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2010.04.009 Used by: D20
  4. Makridakis et al. (2020) Makridakis, S., Spiliotis, E., & Assimakopoulos, V. (2020). The M4 Competition: 100,000 time series and 61 forecasting methods. International Journal of Forecasting, 36(1), 54–74. doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2019.04.014 Used by: D6
  5. Svetunkov (2023) Svetunkov, I. (2023). Forecasting and Analytics with the Augmented Dynamic Adaptive Model (ADAM). Chapman and Hall/CRC. doi:10.1201/9781003452652 Used by: D1, D10, D11, D15

Artefacts

Score

Scores are computed by rules from the claimset file (EntryLib rubric 0.2): they check the record, not the science, and may change as the rubric and reviews develop. The rubric.

C3: 78, Medium

Novelty: new, by the authors · no close match on EntryLib

  1. −5 Context A principal claim related to no earlier work. To remove it: Relate the claim to the earlier work it extends, addresses or departs from.
  2. −5 Plan The lab record flags the test: code changed after plan. To remove it: Rerun the test as planned, or explain the flag in a limitation.
  3. −5 Open problems Limitation L2 (reduces precision, not mitigated): The lab record flags plans PL11, PL12 and PL13 with code changed after the plan; the only commit between those plans and their runs updated the claimset skills under .claude/skills, not the analysis scripts. To remove it: Mitigate it with evidence, or narrow the claim's scope so that it no longer applies.
  4. −3 Open problems Assumption C25 is not checked: The ratio of the mean of the last third of a series to its overall mean indexes how much the scale of its errors at the forecast origin exceeds the average scale over the sample. To remove it: Test the assumption, or analyse how sensitive the claim is to it.
  5. −3 Plan The plan's time is anchored by a git push only. To remove it: Anchor plans with the platform, a timestamp authority (RFC 3161) or a registry.
  6. −1 Open problems Limitation L3 (reduces transferability, not mitigated): ETS(MNN), the comparator whose coverage stays flat over the level terciles on M4, is badly centred there (q50 of 0.372) and has an MCE of 0.0849, so its flat cov80 does not make it well calibrated. To remove it: Mitigate it with evidence, or narrow the claim's scope so that it no longer applies.

C2: 83, High

Novelty: new, by the authors · no close match on EntryLib

  1. −5 Plan The lab record flags the test: code changed after plan. To remove it: Rerun the test as planned, or explain the flag in a limitation.
  2. −5 Open problems Limitation L2 (reduces precision, not mitigated): The lab record flags plans PL11, PL12 and PL13 with code changed after the plan; the only commit between those plans and their runs updated the claimset skills under .claude/skills, not the analysis scripts. To remove it: Mitigate it with evidence, or narrow the claim's scope so that it no longer applies.
  3. −3 Open problems Assumption C25 is not checked: The ratio of the mean of the last third of a series to its overall mean indexes how much the scale of its errors at the forecast origin exceeds the average scale over the sample. To remove it: Test the assumption, or analyse how sensitive the claim is to it.
  4. −3 Plan The plan's time is anchored by a git push only. To remove it: Anchor plans with the platform, a timestamp authority (RFC 3161) or a registry.
  5. −1 Open problems Limitation L3 (reduces transferability, not mitigated): ETS(MNN), the comparator whose coverage stays flat over the level terciles on M4, is badly centred there (q50 of 0.372) and has an MCE of 0.0849, so its flat cov80 does not make it well calibrated. To remove it: Mitigate it with evidence, or narrow the claim's scope so that it no longer applies.

C8: 97, High

Novelty: new, by the authors

  1. −3 Open problems Assumption C25 is not checked: The ratio of the mean of the last third of a series to its overall mean indexes how much the scale of its errors at the forecast origin exceeds the average scale over the sample. To remove it: Test the assumption, or analyse how sensitive the claim is to it.