Basic Baseline model design choices can substantially influence performance in collaborative forecast hubs
Suez, E.; Fox, S. J.
Show abstract
Over the past decade, outbreak forecasting has become an increasingly used tool to assist public health decision-making during epidemics. Collaborative forecast hubs, where multiple teams submit predictions in real-time, are the gold standard for such efforts. For each hub, a Baseline model is used as a performance benchmark for other models. Although the Baseline is understood as a naive forecast, its design is subjective, and the impact of model design decisions remains understudied. We evaluated how three Baseline specification decisions influence forecast performance on trend models that forecast based on historically observed dynamics: (1) the amount of historical data used for training, (2) whether the data are transformed, and (3) whether forecasts follow a flatline variant (constant predictions) or a drift variant (allowing a slope). Retrospective forecasts were generated for multiple years across four surveillance targets: COVID-19, influenza and RSV hospital admissions, and weighted influenza-like illness percentage. For wILI, we additionally compared trend baselines with a seasonal baseline model leveraging long-term historical patterns. Model specification significantly altered performance. The optimal performing model across targets was a flatline model that used the most recent 6-12 transformed observations. The optimal model outperforms the current standard Baseline used in many forecast hubs by an average of 9.6% (range: 3.7-12.9%) across forecast targets, and it outperformed the seasonal baseline model by 32.3% across nine influenza seasons. Our results demonstrate that subjective Baseline design decisions can materially influence forecast accuracy and, consequently, the perceived rankings of models within collaborative forecast hubs. Based on the varying approaches and their performance differences, these findings highlight the need for increased transparency in Baseline model specifications and support the routine inclusion of multiple benchmark models within collaborative forecast hubs.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A prospective real-time transfer learning approach to estimate Influenza hospitalizations with limited data 96%
- Assessing the utility of COVID-19 case reports as a leading indicator for hospitalization forecasting in the United States 95%
- Predicting the impact of COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical intervention on short- and medium-term dynamics of enterovirus D68 in the US 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Fine-Grained Forecasting of COVID-19 Trends at the County Level in the United States 94%
- FedWeight: Mitigating Covariate Shift of Federated Learning on Electronic Health Records Data through Patients Re-weighting 94%
- It’s complicated: characterizing the time-varying relationship between cell phone mobility and COVID-19 spread in the US 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- An adaptive weight ensemble approach to forecast influenza activity in the context of irregular seasonality 97%
- Trade-offs between individual and ensemble forecasts of an emerging infectious disease 96%
- Informing pandemic response in the face of uncertainty. An evaluation of the U.S. COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub 93%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.