Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Evaluation on the resistance of accuracy measures to a single forecasting outlier.

A: Synthetic time series data where Yt is the target series and are forecasts. The only difference between is their forecasts on the observation Y8. B: Results of single forecasting outlier evaluation, which shows UMBRAE is less sensitive than other measures to a single forecasting outlier.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Evaluation on the symmetry of accuracy measures to over-estimates and under-estimates.

A: Synthetic time series data where Yt is the target series and are forecasts. makes a 10% over-estimate to all observations of Yt, while makes a 10% under-estimate. B: Results of symmetric evaluation, which shows UMBRAE and all other accuracy measures except sMAPE are symmetric.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Evaluation on the scale dependency of accuracy measures.

A: Synthetic time series data where Yt is the target series and are forecasts. and have the same mean absolute error, but errors are on different percentage scales to the corresponding values of Yt. B: Results of scale dependency evaluation, where MAE, RMSE, MASE and even GMRAE show no difference between and . MRAE and MAPE produce substantially different errors for the two cases. sMAPE and UMBRAE can reasonably distinguish the two forecasts.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Table 1.

Results on M3-Competition data at first six forecasting horizons.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient of the rankings in Table 1.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Results with a 3% trimming level on M3-Competition data at first six forecasting horizons.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient of the rankings in Table 3.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 4.

Box-and-whisker plot and kernel density estimates for the absolute errors used by MAE.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Box-and-whisker plot and kernel density estimates for the squared errors used by RMSE.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Box-and-whisker plot and kernel density estimates for the absolute scaled errors used by MASE.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Box-and-whisker plot and kernel density estimates for the absolute scaled errors used by AvgRelMAE (log-scale).

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Box-and-whisker plot and kernel density estimates for the relative absolute errors used by MRAE and GMRAE (log-scale, forecasts with zero or undefined error excluded).

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Box-and-whisker plot and kernel density estimates for the absolute percentage errors used by MAPE.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Fig 10.

Box-and-whisker plot and kernel density estimates for the scaled percentage errors used by sMAPE.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Fig 11.

Box-and-whisker plot and kernel density estimates for the bounded relative absolute errors used by UMBRAE (using the naïve errors as the benchmark).

More »

Fig 11 Expand

Table 5.

Ratings of accuracy measures.

More »

Table 5 Expand