<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>DEV Community: Senanur Çetin</title>
    <description>The latest articles on DEV Community by Senanur Çetin (@senanurcetin).</description>
    <link>https://dev.to/senanurcetin</link>
    
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="https://dev.to/feed/senanurcetin"/>
    <language>en</language>
    <item>
      <title>My ensemble scored 0.129 on the leaderboard. Here is what explained the gap</title>
      <dc:creator>Senanur Çetin</dc:creator>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2026 20:03:09 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>https://dev.to/senanurcetin/my-ensemble-scored-0129-on-the-leaderboard-here-is-what-explained-the-gap-5aba</link>
      <guid>https://dev.to/senanurcetin/my-ensemble-scored-0129-on-the-leaderboard-here-is-what-explained-the-gap-5aba</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;My ensemble scored 0.129 on the leaderboard, below the field median. I published it anyway, then tested six explanations for the gap.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Before submitting I wrote down a forecast: 0.143. The graded scores were 0.128 (single model) and 0.129 (ensemble).&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  Setup
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;804.5M raw market rows reduced to 292 BigQuery features, walk-forward validation with a one-month embargo, six months held out and read exactly once (+0.15171).&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  What I found, without spending another submission
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;One hypothesis confirmed: my hold-out sat at the 83rd percentile of period difficulty. De-biasing for that gives +0.14084, within 0.00004 of the walk-forward mean computed a different way.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Four falsified, including the two I liked most. One unsettled.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Period difficulty explains 46% of the gap. The rest is documented, not explained away.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Five recorded forecasts, five overshoots, all in the same direction. That points to one cause, not five mistakes.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  The rule I kept
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;p&gt;An internal gain smaller than the fold-to-fold noise tells you which model to prefer, not what a leaderboard will show.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;h2&gt;
  
  
  Links
&lt;/h2&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Case study: &lt;a href="https://senanur-cetin.vercel.app/projects/mscapital-market-forecasting?utm_source=devto&amp;amp;utm_medium=social&amp;amp;utm_campaign=w1-mscapital" rel="noopener noreferrer"&gt;MSCapital market forecasting&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Notebook: &lt;a href="https://www.kaggle.com/code/senanuretin/ms-capital-my-hold-out-was-a-lucky-stretch" rel="noopener noreferrer"&gt;My hold-out was a lucky stretch (Kaggle)&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;

</description>
      <category>datascience</category>
      <category>machinelearning</category>
      <category>kaggle</category>
      <category>modelevaluation</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
