Comparative Analysis of Modern Machine Learning Models for Retail Sales Forecasting
Luka Hobor, Mario Brcic, Lidija Polutnik, Ante Kapetanovic
Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
Accurate demand forecasting is critical for brick-and-mortar retailers to optimize inventory management and minimize costs. This study evaluates statistical baselines, tree-based ensembles (XGBoost and LightGBM), and deep learning architectures (N-BEATS, N-HiTS, and the Temporal Fusion Transformer) on retail sales data characterized by intermittent demand, substantial missingness, and frequent product turnover. Model ...
s are compared across four configurations varying by aggregation level and imputation strategy, using evaluation protocols that reflect typical deployment patterns for each model class. Localized tree-based methods achieve superior performance, with XGBoost attaining the lowest RMSE of 4.833. While SAITS-based imputation improved neural network performance in aggregated settings, these models remained inferior to ensemble methods. The results suggest that, under the studied constraints, model selection should prioritize alignment with problem characteristics over architectural sophistication.
Results & Benchmarks
Benchmark evidence drill-down
Audit each benchmark finding before selecting an implementation path. Evidence refs map to the disclosure section below.
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Value | Source | Evidence refs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transformer | Mean | Demand Error | 1.211 | paper-derived | No explicit refs |
| Transformer | Theta | Demand Error | 2.854 | paper-derived | No explicit refs |
Accurate demand forecasting is critical for brick-and-mortar retailers to optimize inventory management and minimize costs.
Implementation Evidence Summary
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
Reproduction Risks
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Hardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence disclosure
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 95/100, grounding 68/100, status medium.
Implementation Status
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Start from this likely method family: Transformer.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Reproduction readiness
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
No verified implementation available
- · No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Framework baselines
- Hugging Face Transformers training guide
Modern transformer training baseline.
- PyTorch nn.Transformer docs
Reference transformer building block implementation.
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Research context
Tasks
Transformer
Methods
Transformer
Domains
None detected
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXExplore Similar Papers
Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.
Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.