.png){kind=icon}
返回
Simple versus complex forecasting: The evidence
.png){kind=icon}
OA
AI
DOI：10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.03.026.png)
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
分享.png){kind=icon}
收藏
摘要
En 中文
This article introduces this JBR Special Issue on simple versus complex methods in forecasting. Simplicity in forecasting requires that (I) method, (2) representation of cumulative knowledge, (3) relationships in models, and (4) relationships among models, forecasts, and decisions are all sufficiently uncomplicated as to be easily understood by decision-makers. Our review of studies comparing simple and complex methods - including those in this special issue - found 97 comparisons in 32 papers. None of the papers provide a balance of evidence that complexity improves forecast accuracy. Complexity increases forecast error by 27 percent on average in the 25 papers with quantitative comparisons. The finding is consistent with prior research to identify valid forecasting methods: all 22 previously identified evidence-based forecasting procedures are simple. Nevertheless, complexity remains popular among researchers, forecasters, and clients. Some evidence suggests that the popularity of complexity may be due to incentives: (1) researchers are rewarded for publishing in highly ranked journals, which favor complexity; (2) forecasters can use complex methods to provide forecasts that support decision-makers' plans; and (3) forecasters' clients may be reassured by incomprehensibility. Clients who prefer accuracy should accept forecasts only from simple evidence-based procedures. They can rate the simplicity of forecasters' procedures using the questionnaire at simple-forecasting.com. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keyword:
Analytics
Big data
Decision-making
Decomposition
Econometrics
Occam's razor
AI总结
对已上传原文的论文进行重点信息的提取，主要内容包括：简要概述、研究摘要、背景介绍、关键亮点、图文解析、展望与总结。
期刊
IF:
9.8
论文数:
1.0W
被引数:
8.7W
机构
引用论文
.png){kind=icon}
分享收藏分享收藏
查看更多内容