arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.25170

World Models, Trees and Foundation Models for Retail Forecasting: Evidence from Four Public Data Sets

Karthik Iyer·Madan Dabbeeru
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A retailer makes different decisions at different grains of the product, store and time hierarchy: store orders for an item in a store, supplier funding for an item across stores, category performance by store, and the financial plan for the chain. Which forecasting model to use depends on the grain. This paper compares models at each grain on four public data sets (M5, six Dominick's categories, Breakfast at the Frat, and Corporación Favorita, the last kept out of all development), over rolling forecast origins with paired tests and model confidence sets. It covers price and promotion through the plan inputs these data record, not product, assortment or place. The models are a world model that carries each item's state forward under the price and promotion plan, the same network without that state, LightGBM, the Temporal Fusion Transformer, TimesFM, Chronos-Bolt, Timestral, seasonal naive, and an equal-weight average of the world model, LightGBM and TimesFM given the plan. The answer changed with the grain. For an item by store and an item across stores, the average had the lowest error on seven and eight of nine data sets, and the 90% confidence set held a median of 1 and 2 models. For a category by store, a category and the chain total, the lowest-error model differed between data sets and a median of 4 of nine models were not separated by the four to six windows available. For category-by-store planning cost, the average or LightGBM was lowest on seven of eight data sets, and the world model was lowest only on M5; it was behind LightGBM item by store on six of eight. Every trained model used the plan, and on the weekly promotion-driven data pretrained models were less accurate without it. These results hold for these data sets; a forecast solved across all four Ps, or a retailer's own data, may give different results. Every model, test and change that lost is reported.

Explore related subjects

cs.LGcs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Karthik Iyer, Madan Dabbeeru. 2026-10-18. World Models, Trees and Foundation Models for Retail Forecasting: Evidence from Four Public Data Sets. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.25170

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Heterogeneous Sheaf Neural Networks

Heterogeneous graphs, whose nodes and edges can belong to different types and feature spaces, arise in many real-world domains, including biology, recommendation, social networks, and computer systems. Existing heterogeneous graph neural networks typically handle this heterogeneity at the architectural level through relation-specific modules, meta-path machinery or type-aware attention, which often leads to increasingly specialised parameter-heavy designs. In this work, we propose HetSheaf, a framework for learning heterogeneous graphs through cellular sheaves. Instead of encoding heterogeneity solely in the architecture, HetSheaf represents it directly in the underlying data structure by assigning type-aware local feature spaces and learning restriction maps conditioned on node features, node types, and edge types. To support graph-level prediction, we further introduce SheafPool, a universal stalk-space readout that aggregates node representations while being invariant to local changes of basis, thereby making graph classification with sheaf networks well-defined and achieving an F1 Score up to 42 percentage points higher than mean pooling. Across a diverse suite of benchmarks (node classification, link prediction and graph classification). HetSheaf consistently achieves up to 2 percentage points higher performance (up to 94.97% Macro F1 Score on node classification and up to 99.62% on link prediction) on the Heterogeneous Graph Benchmark (HGB) framework against homogeneous (GCN, GAT, GIN, GraphSAGE), heterogeneous (R-GCN, HAT, HGT) and type-agnostic sheaf baselines, while reducing the number of parameters by up to 10$\times$.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Risk-averse learning with delayed feedback

In real-world scenarios, risk-averse learning is valuable for mitigating potential adverse outcomes. However, the delayed feedback makes it challenging to assess and manage risk effectively. In this paper, we investigate risk-averse learning using Conditional Value at Risk (CVaR) as risk measure, while incorporating feedback with random but bounded delays. We develop two risk-averse learning algorithms that rely on one-point and two-point zeroth-order optimization approaches, respectively. The dynamic regrets of the algorithms are analyzed in terms of the cumulative delay and the number of total samplings. In the absence of delay, the regret bounds match the established bounds of zeroth-order stochastic gradient methods for risk-averse learning. Furthermore, the two-point risk-averse learning outperforms the one-point algorithm by achieving a smaller regret bound. We provide numerical experiments on a dynamic pricing problem to demonstrate the performance of the algorithms.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

On the Value of Cross-Modal Misalignment in Multimodal Representation Learning

Multimodal representation learning, exemplified by multimodal contrastive learning (MMCL) using image-text pairs, aims to learn powerful representations by aligning cues across modalities. This approach relies on the core assumption that the exemplar image-text pairs constitute two representations of an identical concept. However, recent research has revealed that real-world datasets often exhibit \emph{cross-modal misalignment}. There are two distinct viewpoints on how to address this issue: one suggests mitigating the misalignment, and the other leveraging it. We seek here to reconcile these seemingly opposing perspectives and to provide a practical guide for practitioners. Using latent variable models, we thus formalize cross-modal misalignment by introducing two specific mechanisms: \emph{selection bias}, where some semantic variables are absent in the text, and \emph{perturbation bias}, where semantic variables are altered---both leading to misalignment in data pairs. Our theoretical analysis shows that, under suitable assumptions, population global minimizers of an alignment--entropy surrogate yield representations that depend only on the semantic variables unaffected by selection and perturbation biases and locally identify this subset almost surely. Extensive empirical studies on synthetic data and real image-text datasets further examine how cross-modal misalignment shapes semantic predictability and downstream performance, shedding light on its nuanced impact on multimodal representation learning.

cs.LG↗