\subsubsection{Na\"{i}ve Methods, Moving Averages, and Exponential Smoothing} \label{ets} Simple forecasting methods are often employed as a benchmark for more sophisticated ones. The so-called na\"{i}ve and seasonal na\"{i}ve methods forecast the next time step in a time series, $y_{T+1}$, with the last observation, $y_T$, and, if a seasonal pattern is present, with the observation $k$ steps before, $y_{T+1-k}$. As variants, both methods can be generalized to include drift terms in the presence of a trend or changing seasonal amplitude. If a time series exhibits no trend, a simple moving average (SMA) is a generalization of the na\"{i}ve method that is more robust to outliers. It is defined as follows: $\hat{y}_{T+1} = \frac{1}{h} \sum_{i=T-h}^{T} y_i$ where $h$ is the horizon over which the average is calculated. If a time series exhibits a seasonal pattern, setting $h$ to a multiple of the periodicity $k$ suffices that the forecast is unbiased. Starting in the 1950s, another popular family of forecasting methods, so-called exponential smoothing methods, was introduced by \cite{brown1959}, \cite{holt1957}, and \cite{winters1960}. The idea is that forecasts $\hat{y}_{T+1}$ are a weighted average of past observations where the weights decay over time; in the case of the simple exponential smoothing (SES) method we obtain: $ \hat{y}_{T+1} = \alpha y_T + \alpha (1 - \alpha) y_{T-1} + \alpha (1 - \alpha)^2 y_{T-2} + \dots + \alpha (1 - \alpha)^{T-1} y_{1} $ where $\alpha$ (with $0 \le \alpha \le 1$) is a smoothing parameter. Exponential smoothing methods are often expressed in an alternative component form that consists of a forecast equation and one or more smoothing equations for unobservable components. Below, we present a generalization of SES, the so-called Holt-Winters' seasonal method, in an additive formulation. $\ell_t$, $b_t$, and $s_t$ represent the unobservable level, trend, and seasonal components inherent in $y_t$, and $\beta$ and $\gamma$ complement $\alpha$ as smoothing parameters: \begin{align*} \hat{y}_{t+1} & = \ell_t + b_t + s_{t+1-k} \\ \ell_t & = \alpha(y_t - s_{t-k}) + (1 - \alpha)(\ell_{t-1} + b_{t-1}) \\ b_t & = \beta (\ell_{t} - \ell_{t-1}) + (1 - \beta) b_{t-1} \\ s_t & = \gamma (y_t - \ell_{t-1} - b_{t-1}) + (1-\gamma)s_{t-k} \end{align*} With $b_t$, $s_t$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$ removed, this formulation reduces to SES. Distinct variations exist: Besides the three components, \cite{gardner1985} add dampening for the trend, \cite{pegels1969} provides multiplicative formulations, and \cite{taylor2003} adds dampening to the latter. The accuracy measure commonly employed is the sum of squared errors between the observations and their forecasts. Originally introduced by \cite{assimakopoulos2000}, \cite{hyndman2003} show how the Theta method can be regarded as an equivalent to SES with a drift term. We mention this method here only because \cite{bell2018} emphasize that it performs well at Uber. However, in our empirical study, we find that this is not true in general. \cite{hyndman2002} introduce statistical processes, so-called innovations state-space models, to generalize the methods in this sub-section. They call this family of models ETS as they capture error, trend, and seasonal terms. Linear and additive ETS models have a structure like so: \begin{align*} y_t & = \vec{w} \cdot \vec{x}_{t-1} + \epsilon_t \\ \vec{x_t} & = \mat{F} \vec{x}_{t-1} + \vec{g} \epsilon_t \end{align*} $y_t$ denote the observations as before while $\vec{x}_t$ is a state vector of unobserved components. $\epsilon_t$ is a white noise series and the matrix $\mat{F}$ and the vectors $\vec{g}$ and $\vec{w}$ contain a model's coefficients. Just as the models in the next sub-section, ETS models are commonly fitted with maximum likelihood and evaluated using information theoretical criteria against historical data. We refer to \cite{hyndman2008b} for a thorough summary.