<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Time Series on Nalar</title>
    <link>https://nalar.dev/tags/time-series/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Time Series on Nalar</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0700</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://nalar.dev/tags/time-series/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Time Series Cross-Validation with Walk-Forward Splits</title>
      <link>https://nalar.dev/time-series-cross-validation-with-walk-forward-splits/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0700</pubDate>
      <guid>https://nalar.dev/time-series-cross-validation-with-walk-forward-splits/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Random train/test splits assume examples are exchangeable. Time-series data violates that assumption because the future occurs after the past, and production models normally predict observations that were not available during training.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Walk-forward validation preserves that chronology.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;h2 id=&#34;why-random-splitting-is-misleading&#34;&gt;Why random splitting is misleading&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Suppose you want to predict next week&amp;rsquo;s demand from historical sales. A random split can place March observations in the test set while April observations appear in training.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Even if features do not explicitly contain future values, the evaluation now uses a model fitted on a future regime. Seasonality, pricing, inventory, customer behavior, and economic conditions can all make the score more optimistic than deployment reality.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
