Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[FEATURE] Include val_series in historical_forecasts if retrain=True #2004

Open
tuomijal opened this issue Sep 20, 2023 · 2 comments
Open

[FEATURE] Include val_series in historical_forecasts if retrain=True #2004

tuomijal opened this issue Sep 20, 2023 · 2 comments
Labels
feature request Use this label to request a new feature

Comments

@tuomijal
Copy link

Is your feature request related to a current problem? Please describe.
Currently historical_forecasts function's retrain parameter only generates train_series in the cross-validation loop. This is a problem if we want to monitor val_loss as well which is a common scenario.

Describe proposed solution
Include the possiblity to generate val_series in cross-validation loop as well.

@tuomijal tuomijal added the triage Issue waiting for triaging label Sep 20, 2023
@tuomijal tuomijal changed the title Include val_series in historical_forecasts if retrain=True [FEATURE] Include val_series in historical_forecasts if retrain=True Sep 20, 2023
@madtoinou
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi @tuomijal, thank you for this feature request.

How do you expect the validation series to be created? Extract m timestamps after the end of the training series? How do you expect this to behave when getting closer to the end of the series (the last historical forecasts iterations) ; reducing the size of the validation series, not retraining the model if there is not enough timestamps for it (using the last version) or not trying to forecasts the end of the series?

Would you be willing to implement this feature?

@madtoinou madtoinou added feature request Use this label to request a new feature and removed triage Issue waiting for triaging labels Sep 22, 2023
@tuomijal
Copy link
Author

Hi @madtoinou, apologies for the delay and thank you for continued support. I have been thinking about this and come to the conclusion that this is not a priority. I can give this more thought and effort if wider demand for the feature appears. We can table this until then.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
feature request Use this label to request a new feature
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants