<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Forecasting on Kwak Jazz</title><link>https://gwils28.github.io/en/tags/forecasting/</link><description>Recent content in Forecasting on Kwak Jazz</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en</language><copyright>© 2026 Wilson Goma</copyright><lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2026 00:26:26 +0100</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://gwils28.github.io/en/tags/forecasting/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Time series foundation models: forecasting tomorrow's electricity consumption for 3,517 commercial buildings</title><link>https://gwils28.github.io/en/projects/flexgrid-prevision-j1/</link><pubDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://gwils28.github.io/en/projects/flexgrid-prevision-j1/</guid><description>The TSFM tech watch applied to a fictional balance responsible party, on real public data: LightGBM, Chronos-2 and their blend against RTE&amp;rsquo;s day-ahead forecast, published and debiased. A 2.7% MAPE on the portfolio against 5.6% without a model, a router that does not beat the blend, a cold start handled by the naive forecast, Timestral and TimesFM 3.0 in an addendum, a Dagster service and its replayed monitoring.</description><media:content xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" url="https://gwils28.github.io/projects/flexgrid-prevision-j1/cover.png"/></item><item><title>Time series foundation models: zero-shot against the specialist</title><link>https://gwils28.github.io/en/posts/tsfm-zero-shot-specialiste/</link><pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://gwils28.github.io/en/posts/tsfm-zero-shot-specialiste/</guid><description>When does a foundation model used without any training beat a model fitted on the series? What I observed over a year of French electricity load, with interval coverage and not only the mean error, then rebuilding a router between the two on 50 series.</description><media:content xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" url="https://gwils28.github.io/posts/tsfm-zero-shot-specialiste/router_features.webp"/></item><item><title>Causal impact on time series: the counterfactual and its placebos</title><link>https://gwils28.github.io/en/posts/impact-causal-series-temporelles/</link><pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://gwils28.github.io/en/posts/impact-causal-series-temporelles/</guid><description>A counterfactual is a forecast. What I observed building one by hand, measuring its coverage on 100 panels with a known truth, planting four violations of the design, and applying it to Volkswagen&amp;rsquo;s share price after dieselgate.</description><media:content xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" url="https://gwils28.github.io/posts/impact-causal-series-temporelles/cover.png"/></item><item><title>Retraining frequency in forecasting: accuracy, freshness and stability</title><link>https://gwils28.github.io/en/posts/frequence-reentrainement/</link><pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://gwils28.github.io/en/posts/frequence-reentrainement/</guid><description>Accuracy, freshness and stability don&amp;rsquo;t call for the same retraining frequency. What I observed on a ten-policy bench, an analytical model, the Monash electricity data and a causal simulation.</description><media:content xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" url="https://gwils28.github.io/posts/frequence-reentrainement/cover.png"/></item><item><title>Hierarchical reconciliation: MinT from scratch, tested on electricity demand in 12 French regions</title><link>https://gwils28.github.io/en/projects/w37-reconciliation-hierarchique/</link><pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://gwils28.github.io/en/projects/w37-reconciliation-hierarchique/</guid><description>MinT rewritten from scratch, its assumptions tested one by one, and an éCO2mix mini-project (12 regions → France) where bottom-up beats the reference method, over 356 origins, two years and two base models.</description><media:content xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" url="https://gwils28.github.io/projects/w37-reconciliation-hierarchique/cover.png"/></item><item><title>Hierarchical forecast reconciliation: promises and limits</title><link>https://gwils28.github.io/en/posts/reconciliation-hierarchique/</link><pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://gwils28.github.io/en/posts/reconciliation-hierarchique/</guid><description>MinT guarantees coherence, not accuracy, and not calibration. Shown through theory, simulation, French grid data and count sales.</description><media:content xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" url="https://gwils28.github.io/posts/reconciliation-hierarchique/cover.png"/></item></channel></rss>