Claim C5 · 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 · C5

Principal claim C5 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/C5, 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

79C5 · descriptive · planned test · novelty: new, by the authors · no close match on EntryLib

On the fresh M4 sample, auto.adam error selection lowers MCE from 0.0352 to 0.0224 and the spread of 80% coverage over the level terciles from 0.272 to 0.077 against R auto.msarima (AutoMSARIMA), short of the planned reduction of MCE to 0.6 times that of auto.msarima, so the planned test is inconclusive.

Evidence

E12 · quant · benchmark · cited by C5

R auto.msarima (AutoMSARIMA) and auto.adam error selection fitted to the 4,500 series of the fresh M4 sample with backcasting; 99 quantiles per series scored on the M4 holdouts; MCE, cov80 by level terciles, scaled pinball, and the share of series choosing dlnorm (run RN48, plan PL15, which repeats PL14 after its failed run).

E12.T1 · R auto.msarima and auto.adam error selection on the fresh M4 sample, backcasting (data: fresh M4 sample, initial states: backcasting)
Rowmethodcoverage (nominal level: 0.8)MCEscaled pinball (median)coverage (nominal level: 0.8, level terciles: low)coverage (nominal level: 0.8, level terciles: mid)coverage (nominal level: 0.8, level terciles: high)range of the 80% coverage over the level tercilesshare of series for which dlnorm is selected
r1auto.adam error selection0.74610.02240.75140.78650.74250.70920.07730.6702
r2AutoMSARIMA0.69230.03520.68720.81930.70980.54770.2715
Calibration curves of the 99 quantiles on the fresh M4 sample: auto.msarima and auto.adam with error selection, overall, by level tercile and by the distributi…
A6 Calibration curves of the 99 quantiles on the fresh M4 sample: auto.msarima and auto.adam with error selection, overall, by level tercile and by the distribution auto.adam chose.

E20 · quant · benchmark

MCE of each calibration curve of the 99 quantiles drawn from recorded outputs: the known-model simulation (runs RN8, RN11, RN39), smooth 1.0.8 and 1.3.0 (RN16, RN19, RN43, RN44), the benchmark (RN45 and the saved ETS benchmark) and the fresh M4 sample (RN48), overall and by level terciles (exploratory run RN49).

E20.T1 · MCE of each curve of figure A3
RowpanellineMCE
r1T=15true parameters0.0144
r2T=15estimated parameters0.0653
r3T=15selected orders0.0579
r4T=25true parameters0.0064
r5T=25estimated parameters0.0341
r6T=25selected orders0.0366
r7T=50true parameters0.001
r8T=50estimated parameters0.0196
r9T=50selected orders0.0235
r10T=100true parameters0.0023
r11T=100estimated parameters0.01
r12T=100selected orders0.0139
r13T=300true parameters0.0007
r14T=300estimated parameters0.0026
r15T=300selected orders0.0046
E20.T2 · MCE of each curve of figure A4
RowpanellineMCE
r1benchmark, backcasting1.0.80.0326
r2benchmark, backcasting1.3.00.0402
r3benchmark, optimal1.0.80.0331
r4benchmark, optimal1.3.00.039
r5simulation T=100, true parameters1.0.80.0123
r6simulation T=100, true parameters1.3.00.0023
r7simulation T=100, estimated1.0.80.012
r8simulation T=100, estimated1.3.00.01
r9simulation T=100, selected1.0.80.0172
r10simulation T=100, selected1.3.00.0139
E20.T3 · MCE of each curve of figure A5
RowpanellineMCE
r1all seriesAutoMSARIMA0.0402
r2all seriesauto.adam error selection0.0187
r3all seriesETS (AutoADAM ZXZ, saved)0.0442
r4low level tercileAutoMSARIMA0.0281
r5low level tercileauto.adam error selection0.0334
r6mid level tercileAutoMSARIMA0.0505
r7mid level tercileauto.adam error selection0.0352
r8high level tercileAutoMSARIMA0.0623
r9high level tercileauto.adam error selection0.0655
r10auto.adam by selected distributionchose dnorm0.0442
r11auto.adam by selected distributionchose dlnorm0.0272
E20.T4 · MCE of each curve of figure A6
RowpanellineMCE
r1all seriesAutoMSARIMA0.0352
r2all seriesauto.adam error selection0.0224
r3low level tercileAutoMSARIMA0.0348
r4low level tercileauto.adam error selection0.041
r5mid level tercileAutoMSARIMA0.0412
r6mid level tercileauto.adam error selection0.02
r7high level tercileAutoMSARIMA0.0757
r8high level tercileauto.adam error selection0.1052
r9auto.adam by selected distributionchose dnorm0.0209
r10auto.adam by selected distributionchose dlnorm0.0351
Calibration curves of the 99 quantiles in the known-model simulation, cases T, E and S, at T = 15, 25, 50, 100, 300: coverage of each quantile (top) and covera…
A3 Calibration curves of the 99 quantiles in the known-model simulation, cases T, E and S, at T = 15, 25, 50, 100, 300: coverage of each quantile (top) and coverage minus level (bottom).
Calibration curves of the 99 quantiles of AutoMSARIMA 1.0.8 and 1.3.0 on the benchmark (backcasting, optimal) and in the simulation at T = 100.
A4 Calibration curves of the 99 quantiles of AutoMSARIMA 1.0.8 and 1.3.0 on the benchmark (backcasting, optimal) and in the simulation at T = 100.
Calibration curves of the 99 quantiles on the 5,315 benchmark series: auto.msarima, auto.adam with error selection and the selected ETS, overall, by level terc…
A5 Calibration curves of the 99 quantiles on the 5,315 benchmark series: auto.msarima, auto.adam with error selection and the selected ETS, overall, by level tercile and by the distribution auto.adam chose.
Calibration curves of the 99 quantiles on the fresh M4 sample: auto.msarima and auto.adam with error selection, overall, by level tercile and by the distributi…
A6 Calibration curves of the 99 quantiles on the fresh M4 sample: auto.msarima and auto.adam with error selection, overall, by level tercile and by the distribution auto.adam chose.

Limitations

L5 · computational · reduces transferability · affects C5, C20 · mitigation: none

The auto.adam comparison ran in R, because Python's AutoADAM removes dlnorm from the candidate distributions of a pure ARIMA whatever the user passes, while R's auto.adam removes it only from its default list.

L6 · analytic flexibility · could bias magnitude · affects C5 · mitigation: none

The thresholds of plan PL15 were fixed after the exploratory benchmark run of auto.adam (RN45) was seen, on M4 series that run did not use.

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).

D8 auto.adam error selection: R auto.adam(y, model="NNN", lags, distribution=c("dnorm","dlnorm"), initial="backcasting") of smooth 4.6: the ARIMA orders and constant are selected by AICc for each distribution with the maxima of auto.msarima (AR (3,3), I (2,1), MA (3,3)), then the distribution with the lower AICc is kept; with dnorm the model is the AutoMSARIMA model, with dlnorm it is the log-normal ARIMA. Quantiles from forecast(interval="prediction"). 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).

Data 7

D2 known-model simulation: Gaussian ARIMA series with σ=10\sigma = 10 generated from 11 data generating processes (white noise with a constant, random walk with and without drift, AR(1), MA(1), ARIMA(0,1,1), ARIMA(1,1,0), ARIMA(1,1,1), ARIMA(0,2,2), seasonal SARIMA(0,1,1)(0,1,1)12_{12} and SARIMA(1,0,0)(1,0,0)12_{12}) plus an IMA(1,1) with Student-t errors on 4 degrees of freedom; in-sample lengths TT of 15, 25, 50, 100 and 300, holdout of 18; 2,000 replicates per process and length with seed 20261105 unless stated.

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).

D9 fresh M4 sample: 1,500 series each of the yearly, quarterly and monthly M4 series, drawn with seed 20261107 from the series not in the M4 sample, so disjoint from it. 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.

Settings 1

D21 smooth 1.0.8 and 1.3.0: Python smooth at tag v1.0.8-py (a separate worktree with its own environment) and at 1.3.0 (commit 634657d8 of openforecast-org/smooth).

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, D9
  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, D8, 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.

C5: 79, Medium

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

  1. −12 Open problems Limitation L6 (could bias magnitude, not mitigated): The thresholds of plan PL15 were fixed after the exploratory benchmark run of auto.adam (RN45) was seen, on M4 series that run did not use. To remove it: Mitigate it with evidence, or narrow the claim's scope so that it no longer applies.
  2. −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.
  3. −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.
  4. −1 Open problems Limitation L5 (reduces transferability, not mitigated): The auto.adam comparison ran in R, because Python's AutoADAM removes dlnorm from the candidate distributions of a pure ARIMA whatever the user passes, while R's auto.adam removes it only from its default list. To remove it: Mitigate it with evidence, or narrow the claim's scope so that it no longer applies.