Humans vs. large language models: Judgmental forecasting in an era of advanced AI

This study investigates the forecasting accuracy of human experts versus large language models (LLMs) in the retail sector, particularly during standard and promotional sales periods. Utilizing a controlled experimental setup with 123 human forecasters and five LLMs—namely, ChatGPT-4, ChatGPT3.5, Bard, Bing, and Llama2—we evaluated forecasting precision through the absolute percentage error. Our analysis centered on the effect of the following factors on forecasters’ performance: the supporting statistical model (baseline and advanced), whether the product was on promotion, and the nature of external impact. The findings indicate that LLMs do not consistently outperform humans in forecasting accuracy and that advanced statistical forecasting models do not uniformly enhance the performance of either human forecasters or LLMs. Both human and LLM forecasters exhibited increased forecasting errors, particularly during promotional periods. Our findings call for careful consideration when integrating LLMs into practical forecasting processes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Journal of Forecasting
Published
2024-10-08
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2024.07.003
Citations
14
Primary Topic
Forecasting Techniques and Applications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
6.87
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Humans vs. large language models: Judgmental forecasting in an era of advanced AI

Mahdi Abolghasemi, Kristian Rotaru, Odkhishig Ganbold
14 citations
International Journal of Forecasting
Forecasting Techniques and Applications
6.87
article

Humans vs. large language models: Judgmental forecasting in an era of advanced AI

Mahdi Abolghasemi, Kristian Rotaru, Odkhishig Ganbold
article en
14 citations

Abstract

This study investigates the forecasting accuracy of human experts versus large language models (LLMs) in the retail sector, particularly during standard and promotional sales periods. Utilizing a controlled experimental setup with 123 human forecasters and five LLMs—namely, ChatGPT-4, ChatGPT3.5, Bard, Bing, and Llama2—we evaluated forecasting precision through the absolute percentage error. Our analysis centered on the effect of the following factors on forecasters’ performance: the supporting statistical model (baseline and advanced), whether the product was on promotion, and the nature of external impact. The findings indicate that LLMs do not consistently outperform humans in forecasting accuracy and that advanced statistical forecasting models do not uniformly enhance the performance of either human forecasters or LLMs. Both human and LLM forecasters exhibited increased forecasting errors, particularly during promotional periods. Our findings call for careful consideration when integrating LLMs into practical forecasting processes.

International Journal of ForecastingVol. 41(2)
The Royal Melbourne Hospital (AU), Queensland University of Technology (AU), Monash University (AU)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Forecasting Techniques and Applications
6.87
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.