Aligning the Evaluation of Probabilistic Predictions with Downstream Value

Every prediction is ultimately used in a downstream task. Consequently, evaluating prediction quality is more meaningful when considered in the context of its downstream use. Metrics based solely on predictive performance often diverge from measures of real-world downstream impact. Existing approaches incorporate the downstream view by relying on multiple task-specific metrics, which can be burdensome to analyze, or by formulating cost-sensitive evaluations that require an explicit cost structure, typically assumed to be known a priori. We frame this mismatch as an evaluation alignment problem and propose a data-driven method to learn a proxy evaluation function aligned with the downstream evaluation. Building on the theory of proper scoring rules, we explore transformations of scoring rules that ensure the preservation of propriety. Our approach leverages weighted scoring rules parametrized by a neural network, where weighting is learned to align with the performance in the downstream task. This enables fast and scalable evaluation cycles across tasks where the weighting is complex or unknown a priori. We showcase our framework through synthetic and real-data experiments for regression tasks, demonstrating its potential to bridge the gap between predictive evaluation and downstream utility in modular prediction systems.

Correlated daily time series and forecasting in the M4 competition

We participated in the M4 competition for time series forecasting and describe here our methods for forecasting daily time series. We used an ensemble of five statistical forecasting methods and a method that we refer to as the correlator. Our retrospective analysis using the ground truth values published by the M4 organisers after the competition demonstrates that the correlator was responsible for most of our gains over the naive constant forecasting method. We identify data leakage as one reason for its success, partly due to test data selected from different time intervals, and partly due to quality issues in the original time series. We suggest that future forecasting competitions should provide actual dates for the time series so that some of those leakages could be avoided by the participants.