First, why would we want non-equal weights in the first place? Demand evolves over time, and recent sales might reflect its current level better than the sales we had several years ago. So, it is only natural to give higher weights to recent observations and lower ones to older ones. Can we do that in a simple and principled way? Yes, and there is a forecasting method that does exactly that!

I’m talking about Simple Exponential Smoothing (SES), proposed by Robert Goodell Brown back in 1956 and independently by Charles Holt in 1957. It is yet another simple forecasting method, suitable for data without trend, seasonality or features. Mathematically, it is written like this:

\begin{equation}
F_{t+1} = \alpha A_{t} + (1−\alpha) F_{t}
\end{equation}

where \(F_t\) is the one-step-ahead forecast, \(A_t\) is the actual value, \(t\) is the time index, and \( \alpha \) is the smoothing parameter. Roughly speaking, \( \alpha \) defines how the weight is split between the most recent actual value and the previous forecast. If \( \alpha=0 \), the forecast ignores all new information and stays at its starting value, which could be, for example, the global average. With \( \alpha=1 \), it ignores all previous forecasts and becomes Naïve. The nice thing about SES is that \( \alpha \) also regulates how the weights are distributed over time, because the method can be rewritten as (see derivations here):

\begin{equation}
F_{t+1} = \alpha A_{t} + \alpha (1−\alpha) A_{t−1} + \alpha (1−\alpha)^2 A_{t−2} + \alpha (1−\alpha)^3 A_{t−3} + …
\end{equation}

Take \(\alpha=0.5\). The most recent observation gets the weight of 0.5, the one before it 0.5 × 0.5 = 0.25, the one before that 0.5 × 0.5² = 0.125, and so on. The weights decay exponentially. So, instead of 12 parameters, we define just one, and it determines how fast the weights decay. The chart in this post compares the equal weights of SMA(12) with SES for \( \alpha=0.2 \) and \( \alpha=0.5 \): the closer α is to zero, the more evenly the weights are spread; the closer it is to one, the more weight goes to the most recent observation, and the faster the older ones are forgotten.

There are tons of papers discussing SES, its modifications and extensions. Gardner (1985 and 2006) is the best review on the topic. And finally, SES is a predecessor of ETS, and its mechanism is used in TBATS.

How do you choose α in practice, and what do you do when SES is not enough? This is what we discuss in our Demand Forecasting Principles course.

Message Simple Exponential Smoothing: one parameter instead of many weights first appeared on OpenForecast.

The idea behind the Simple Moving Average (SMA) is to take the average of the last few observations and use it as a forecast for the next several steps ahead. Very crude and very simple. In fact, it has Naive (from this post) as a special case if you take the average of one most recent observation. On the other hand, if you increase the order to include all the observations, you will end up with the Global Mean. And this simple method works quite well if you have level data, i.e. no apparent strong trend, no obvious seasonality, and no other important elements of structure.

The only thing that makes it a bit harder to use in practice is the choice of the order, i.e. the number of observations to average over. Unfortunately, there is no universal answer here. But people report that the order of 12 or 13 is fine for weekly data, although it’s not completely clear why. In the academic literature, Aris Syntetos & John Boylan (2005) found that SMA(13) performed quite well on intermittent demand data, which was unexpected given the nature of the data (lots of zeroes). And almost 10 years ago, Fotios Petropoulos and I proposed a model underlying SMA with automatic order selection. We showed that it outperforms other simple benchmarks on supply chain data.

There is also some evidence from the VN2 inventory competition by Nicolas Vandeput. The benchmark there was built around a 13-week moving average with a simple seasonal adjustment, and only 25 out of 180+ participants managed to beat it. Many sophisticated ML pipelines lost to a method that predates computers.

So, if you work, for example, in retail or in supply chain, SMA is a method to consider for your sanity-check pool of models. But don’t expect miracles from it! It is still a simple method that works for level time series. Use it as a stepping stone to find a better model that has more features.

Anyone else found SMA to be a strong contender? Leave a comment – it would be interesting to see how many of you have had the same experience.

And yes, we discuss it in our “Demand Forecasting Principles” training in more detail. The next one will be held online in November, with live sessions from 2pm to 4pm UK time. We still have a few places left, so register here.

Message The Menace of ML: Simple Moving Average first appeared on OpenForecast.

It is called “Seasonal Naïve”. While the simple Naïve copies the last observed actual into the future as a forecast, the seasonal one copies the whole seasonal shape of the data and uses it as a forecast. The logic is straightforward: if you see an increase in sales every January, why not use the actual sales of January 2025 as the forecast for January 2026? Simple, easy to do, and hard to beat in some cases, especially when your demand does not have high variability.

What this method doesn’t do is filter out the noise in the data. This means that if you had a promotion-driven spike this February, Seasonal Naïve will happily copy it into next February’s forecast. So, if you have some distinct components in your time series and/or effects of explanatory variables on sales, Seasonal Naïve might not be a good choice. But it remains an essential benchmark for any seasonal data.

I actually have an anecdote related to the Seasonal Naïve. Yves Sagaert and I were working on a paper, and we decided to apply our new method to data with multiple seasonality. It worked great, better than the double seasonal exponential smoothing and ARIMA. I was really hyped and was ready to celebrate, when Yves suggested trying the Seasonal Naïve as well. It’s good that he did, because it turned out that Seasonal Naïve beat them all, including our new method, without even blinking. This was a great demonstration of a principle I had been preaching to others: if you have seasonal data, always use Seasonal Naïve as a benchmark.

In the Demand Forecasting Principles course in November, we cover simple methods like this one properly, including when to stop trusting them. Details and booking can be found here.

Message Another important Naïve method first appeared on OpenForecast.

Naïve is a very simple forecasting method: the forecast equals to the last observed value. So, for example, if the room temperature at 12pm was 20 degrees Celsius, then Naive will forecast exactly the same temperature for 1pm, and it will usually be roughly right. That is what makes it dangerous to sophisticated models: it is often surprisingly hard to beat. If your model cannot beat Naïve, it is not worth deploying, no matter how sophisticated and beautiful it is.

This is why there is a well-established rule in forecasting: any proper evaluation should include simple benchmarks, and Naïve is the easiest one to implement, because it does not have any parameters to estimate and can work with the sample of one observation. This is why you will find it in every decent forecasting competition.

This is not a new finding, by the way. Back in 1979, Spyros Makridakis and Michèle Hibon published a paper, showing on a set of 111 real time series that simple methods were often at least as accurate as the sophisticated statistical ones. The audience did not take it well: the discussion that followed was openly hostile, with eminent statisticians suggesting that the results said more about the authors’ skills than about the methods. Spyros’ response was to test the claim at a much larger scale, which is how the M-competitions were born. I wrote a post about that some time ago. But the lesson survived the criticism: always compare your approach with the simple forecasting methods.

In our training course on Demand Forecasting Principles, we discuss this and other simple methods in more detail, showing where they work and where they fail. They are all building blocks for understanding applied forecasting.

The next course runs online in October, over Zoom. Details and booking can be found here.

P.S. There is one case where Naïve is not a good benchmark, read this post.

Message Why Naïve is popular and important first appeared on OpenForecast.