Intelligent Routing for Sparse Demand Forecasting: A Comparative Evaluation of Selection Strategies

Qiwen Zhang

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 18 references

Intelligent Routing for Sparse Demand Forecasting: A Comparative Evaluation of Selection Strategies

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A learned router that picks among seven forecasting models cuts sparse-demand forecast error by about 12% versus the best single model on a large retail dataset, at a fraction of the inference cost.

desk verdict A credible, honestly-limited empirical comparison of model routers for sparse demand; the headline 12% gain is plausible but rests on benchmarks and labels that need stronger validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14810 v2 pith:COUJF3QE submitted 2025-06-04 cs.LG

Qiwen Zhang This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LG

keywords sparsedemandforecastingmodelroutingintermittentmeta-learningtimeseriesclassificationInceptionNWRMSLEFavoritadataset

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that no single forecasting model reliably handles the mix of smooth, erratic, lumpy, and intermittent demand series found in retail, so the right strategy is to learn a router that assigns each series to one model in a small bank. It builds three routers: a rule-based heuristic, a LightGBM classifier on engineered features, and an InceptionTime classifier on raw series. On 5,000 held-out series from the Favorita grocery dataset, all three beat every single-model benchmark; the InceptionTime router achieves the best NWRMSLE, about 11.8% lower than PatchTST, at roughly one-fifth the inference time. The gain matters because accurate sparse-demand forecasts directly reduce stockouts and excess inventory in supply chains.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the Model-Router framework. For each of 19,646 training series, every one of seven forecasters (ETS, Croston, Naive, Moving Average, LightGBM, DeepAR, PatchTST) is evaluated and the lowest-NWRMSLE model is recorded as the series' 'best model' label. A router is then trained as a classifier to predict that label; the LightGBM router uses 34 hand-engineered features, while the InceptionTime router reads the raw series directly. At inference, the router picks one forecaster per series from the bank, concentrating expensive deep-learning computation only where it is selected.

What would settle it

Retrain the seven bank models with full convergence on a proper temporal train/validation split, regenerate the best-model labels from the validation window, and retrain the routers; if the InceptionTime router's NWRMSLE advantage over PatchTST shrinks to near zero or reverses, the routing claim fails. A direct check is whether the best-model labels themselves reproduce on a second holdout sample.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that dynamic model selection is a viable and efficient alternative to picking one strong forecaster for all series: a model router trained to reproduce the 'best model per series' choice from a seven-model bank outperforms every member of the bank on the Favorita holdout. InceptionTime, operating on raw demand sequences, reaches NWRMSLE 2.051 (14-day) and 3.134 (30-day), versus 2.323 and 3.555 for PatchTST, the strongest single model; the improvement is about 11.7-11.8 percent. The router achieves this while running in 3,637.81 seconds over 5,000 series, versus 16,997.25 seconds for PatchTST. The paper also reports that even with only 0.34-0.43 classification accuracy, routing still improves forecasts, because selecting a good-enough model is sufficient.

Load-bearing premise

The routers are trained on labels obtained by evaluating each forecaster on the same series used to train it, with no temporal holdout and with DeepAR and PatchTST capped at 100 iterations, so the labels may encode in-sample fit or weak benchmarks rather than a model that truly generalizes to future demand.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

On the Favorita holdout, routing cuts NWRMSLE by about 11.7-11.8% versus PatchTST for both 14-day and 30-day horizons.
The InceptionTime router is about 4.67x faster than PatchTST at inference across 5,000 series, so the accuracy gain does not require extra compute.
All three routers (rule-based, LightGBM, InceptionTime) beat every single-model benchmark on both horizons, so the benefit is not specific to one router type.
Router accuracy of only 0.34-0.43 is enough to produce large forecast gains, meaning the approach tolerates imperfect model identification.
The router performs best on intermittent and smooth demand patterns, the hardest cases for standard methods.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the measured 12% gain survives proper temporal label construction, routing should transfer to other sparse-demand settings such as spare parts or healthcare inventories, where the label distribution will differ from retail.
The finding that 0.34-0.43 classification accuracy is enough suggests a cost-sensitive router, one that penalizes selections landing on a very poor model more heavily than near-misses, could extend the gain, though the paper does not test this.
Because both learned routers emit class probabilities, probability-weighted ensembling of the seven bank forecasts is a natural next step that the paper only sketches as future work.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The main thing to know: this is a straightforward empirical comparison of three model-routing strategies (rule-based, LightGBM, InceptionTime) for sparse demand forecasting on the Favorita dataset. The evaluation uses a genuinely held-out 5,000-series set, and the paper is refreshingly candid about its own weaknesses. The InceptionTime router's claimed ~12% NWRMSLE improvement over PatchTST is plausible, but I wouldn't call it firmly established yet.

What's actually new is the three-way routing comparison itself. FFORMA and other meta-learning approaches exist, but nobody has published this specific rule/ML/DL router comparison on a large retail panel. The per-demand-pattern results in Table 1 are useful, and the paper correctly notes that even imperfect classification can yield big forecast gains. The runtime comparison is also a practical plus. The authors deserve credit for explicitly acknowledging in Section 6 that the 100-iteration training for DeepAR and PatchTST may underestimate their capability and affect the router labels — that's exactly the stress-test concern, and they say it themselves.

The soft spots are real but addressable. First, the 'best model' labels in Section 3.4.2 are generated by evaluating all seven forecasters on the same training series they were fit on, with no temporal train/validation split described. For global models like DeepAR and PatchTST, that's in-sample and will bias labels toward the deep learning models. Second, the benchmark PatchTST is a 100-iteration version, so calling it a 'strong single-model benchmark' is generous. Third, there are no error bars or significance tests on the headline NWRMSLE differences. Fourth, the rule-based router thresholds were tuned on preliminary data, so the rule-based comparison is somewhat favorable by construction. Missing code and data also make reproduction harder. None of these are fatal, but together they mean the 11.7–11.8% improvement should be read as an upper bound until the labels and benchmarks are cleaned up.

Who's this for? Practitioners in retail and supply chain forecasting who want evidence on whether routing is worth the complexity. It's not a theory paper and it won't change how I think about meta-learning, but it's a fair empirical data point. I'd send it to a serious referee, mostly because the core question is practical and the authors have already shown they can state their limitations honestly. The revision should require: a temporal split for label generation, fully trained DeepAR/PatchTST, and at least bootstrap confidence intervals on the main table. Then the result would be credible enough to act on.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Model-Router framework for sparse and intermittent demand forecasting, in which a meta-model selects one of seven forecasting models (ETS, Croston, Naive, Moving Average, LightGBM, DeepAR, PatchTST) for each product-store time series. Three routers are compared: a rule-based router using variability and lag-7 autocorrelation thresholds, a LightGBM router trained on 34 engineered time-series features, and an InceptionTime router operating on raw series. The 'best model' labels for router training are obtained by evaluating all seven forecasters on 19,646 training series for 14-day and 30-day horizons under NWRMSLE. Evaluation on 5,000 held-out series reports that the InceptionTime router achieves NWRMSLE of 2.051 (14-day) and 3.134 (30-day), claimed as about 11.7-11.8% improvements over the strongest single-model benchmark, PatchTST, with 4.67x faster inference time.

Significance. The problem is relevant: sparse and intermittent demand is common in retail supply chains, and the idea of learning to route among complementary forecasters is a useful extension of meta-learning approaches such as FFORMA. The paper has several strengths: the evaluation uses a separate 5,000-series holdout and the official Favorita NWRMSLE metric, the model bank spans classical, ML, and DL paradigms, and results are reported by demand pattern as well as overall. The routers achieve large reported gains despite modest classification accuracy, which is an interesting and plausible phenomenon. However, the central claim of an ~12% improvement over a strong single model depends on the reliability of the 'best model' labels and on the benchmark strength of PatchTST; both are currently undermined by the label-generation protocol and the 100-iteration training cap. The absence of uncertainty quantification further weakens the specificity of the headline comparison. If the authors address these issues, the work would be a solid empirical contribution to meta-learning for forecasting; as it stands, the result is not yet convincingly isolated from known artifacts.

major comments (3)

[§3.4.2, §4.1, §6] The ground-truth 'best model' labels are generated by training and evaluating all seven forecasters on the same 19,646 training series, but no temporal train/validation split is described. Since DeepAR and PatchTST are global models, evaluating them on the same panel used to fit them is in-sample; the resulting labels may reflect overfitting rather than generalization. Because the LightGBM and InceptionTime routers are trained to predict these labels, the holdout gains in Table 1 can be inflated if the labels do not transfer to new series. The limitation is acknowledged in Section 6, but it is not merely a caveat: it directly affects the central claim. Please (i) use a temporal split for label generation (fit on an early portion of each training series, evaluate on a later portion) and (ii) report the sensitivity of the router gains to this choice, or justify why the current protocol is not in-sample.
[§5.1, Table 1] All NWRMSLE values are reported as point estimates from a single 5,000-series holdout. There are no confidence intervals, standard errors, or paired significance tests. The headline 11.7-11.8% improvement over PatchTST is a comparison of two numbers; without a measure of uncertainty (e.g., bootstrap over the 5,000 series or a paired test on per-series errors), it is impossible to judge whether the observed differences are stable or within noise. This also applies to the per-demand-pattern comparisons. Please report paired bootstrap confidence intervals or a paired significance test for the overall and per-pattern results.
[§5.3, Table 3] The reported inference times for the routers are ambiguous. The table caption says 'Model Inference Time for 14-Day Forecast,' but it is not clear whether the router times include the cost of running the selected forecaster (e.g., PatchTST) on the 5,000 series, or only the router's classification overhead. If the latter, the abstract's '4.67x faster inference' claim is unsupported, because the total cost must include the selected expert's inference. Please clarify the measurement protocol and provide a breakdown of router overhead versus selected-model inference for each router configuration.

minor comments (4)

[§3.5] The rule-based thresholds (0.8, 0.3, 0.4) are said to be based on 'preliminary analyses,' but no validation set, selection procedure, or sensitivity analysis is described. Please state how these thresholds were chosen and whether the rule-based router's result is robust to reasonable variations in them.
[§5.2] The random baseline of approximately 0.14 assumes a uniform distribution over the seven 'best model' classes. If the labels are imbalanced, the majority-class baseline may be higher. Please report the class distribution of the 'best model' labels and a stratified baseline, so that the classification accuracy values are interpretable.
[Table 1] Naive, Moving Average, ETS, and DeepAR are part of the model bank but are not reported as single-model benchmarks. Including their overall NWRMSLE would make the benchmark comparison more complete and would help assess the complementarity of the model bank.
[General] There are several minor presentation issues: 'approachs' in Section 5.1, references to 'Figure 1' without the figure appearing in the text, and no code/data repository link. Please provide the exact package versions and configuration files for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the router is trained on supervised best-model labels and evaluated on a disjoint holdout; stated limitations affect benchmark strength, not the derivation's logical structure.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Model-bank forecasts for each training series are scored with NWRMSLE, and the lowest-error model becomes a categorical label (Section 3.4.2). The LightGBM and InceptionTime routers are trained as classifiers to predict that label from features or raw series, and are then evaluated on 5,000 held-out series (Section 4.4). The headline comparison against PatchTST is an out-of-sample forecast comparison, not a restatement of the training labels. No equation or parameter is defined in terms of the reported improvement; the routers do not directly optimize NWRMSLE on the holdout, and the paper even reports moderate classification accuracy (0.34–0.43), which would be impossible if the result were forced by construction. The acknowledged limitation that DeepAR and PatchTST were trained for only 100 iterations (Sections 3.4.1 and 6) may understate those benchmarks and affect label quality, but a weak benchmark is a correctness threat, not a circularity threat. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain: references to prior meta-learning work (FFORMA, Talagala et al.) are external and the router architecture itself is evaluated empirically. Therefore the central claim has independent content and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The empirical claims rest mainly on the quality of the per-series best-model labels, the representativeness of Favorita, and hand-tuned rule thresholds. The label-generation step and the single-dataset evaluation are the largest unpaid assumptions; they are acknowledged in Section 6 as limitations.

free parameters (3)

Rule-based router thresholds = variability < 0.8; autocorrelation lag 7 > 0.3 and > 0.4
Section 3.5: thresholds were selected based on preliminary analyses and observed effectiveness, not derived from theory or a held-out tuning procedure.
DL model training iteration cap = 100 iterations
Sections 3.4.1 and 4.1: chosen due to computational constraints; affects the quality of model bank forecasts and therefore the best-model labels that train the routers.
Favorita sample sizes = 19,646 training and 5,000 holdout series
Section 3.2: counts were chosen without a stated seed; they determine the statistical power and the router training set.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption No single forecasting model consistently outperforms others across heterogeneous demand series
Section 1 invokes Makridakis and Hibon [10]; this empirical generalization is the motivation for routing but is not proven in this paper.
domain assumption A bank of seven models provides sufficient complementary coverage for all demand patterns in the data
Section 3.4.1 selects models by the complementarity principle; no quantitative coverage or diversity test is provided.
domain assumption Best-model labels computed by evaluating models on the Favorita series identify models that generalize to the holdout
Section 3.4.2 records the lowest-NWRMSLE model per series without a described temporal train/validation split; label quality is assumed to transfer to the holdout.
domain assumption The Favorita dataset is representative of sparse retail demand more broadly
Section 6 acknowledges single-dataset evaluation; generalization to other supply chain settings is an unverified assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Intelligent Routing for Sparse Demand Forecasting: A Comparative Evaluation of Selection Strategies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/COUJF3QE

@misc{pith2026250614810,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Intelligent Routing for Sparse Demand Forecasting: A Comparative Evaluation of Selection Strategies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/COUJF3QE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14810}
}

read the original abstract

Sparse and intermittent demand forecasting in supply chains presents a critical challenge, as frequent zero-demand periods hinder traditional model accuracy and impact inventory management. We propose and evaluate a Model-Router framework that dynamically selects the most suitable forecasting model-spanning classical, ML, and DL methods for each product based on its unique demand pattern. By comparing rule-based, LightGBM, and InceptionTime routers, our approach learns to assign appropriate forecasting strategies, effectively differentiating between smooth, lumpy, or intermittent demand regimes to optimize predictions. Experiments on the large-scale Favorita dataset show our deep learning (Inception Time) router improves forecasting accuracy by up to 11.8% (NWRMSLE) over strong, single-model benchmarks with 4.67x faster inference time. Ultimately, these gains in forecasting precision will drive substantial reductions in both stockouts and wasteful excess inventory, underscoring the critical role of intelligent, adaptive Al in optimizing contemporary supply chain operations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14810 by the authors.

**Figure 4.** ADI vs. CV2 classification of demand patterns. 3.4 Model Bank Formulation and Evaluation 3.4.1 Rationale for Model Selection. A critical component of our framework is the model bank, which serves as a pool of candidate experts for the router. The selection of models was guided by the principle of **complementarity**, aiming to include a diverse set of methods, each with distinct theoretical underpinnings and strengt… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Distribution of Zero Sales Percentage • Demand Pattern Classification (ADI vs. CV2 ): To further characterize the demand patterns, a scatter plot of Average Demand Interval (ADI) versus the squared Coefficient of Variation (CV2 ) was utilized, following established inventory management literature for classifying demand [17]. Outliers were removed using the Interquartile Range (IQR) method prior to plotting to ensu… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

[1]

[n. d.]. https://www.kaggle.com/c/favorita-grocery-sales-forecasting

work page
[2]

Abdur Chowdhury, Rajesh Paul, and Farhana Zaman Rozony. 2025. A SYS- TEMATIC REVIEW OF DEMAND FORECASTING MODELS FOR RETAIL E- COMMERCE ENHANCING ACCURACY IN INVENTORY AND DELIVERY PLANNING. International Journal of Scientific Interdisciplinary Research 06 (03 2025), 01–27. https://doi.org/10.63125/mbbfw637

work page doi:10.63125/mbbfw637 2025
[3]

J.D. Croston. 1972. Forecasting and stock control for intermittent demands. Operational Research Quarterly 23, 3 (1972), 289–303

work page 1972
[4]

Linda Eglite and Ilze Birzniece. 2022. Retail Sales Forecasting Using Deep Learn- ing: Systematic Literature Review. Complex Systems Informatics and Modeling Quarterly 0 (04 2022), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.7250/csimq.2022-30.03

work page doi:10.7250/csimq.2022-30.03 2022
[5]

Jeffrey L. Elman. 1990. Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science 14, 2 (1990), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(90)90002-E

doi:10.1016/0364-0213(90)90002-e 1990
[6]

Robin John Hyndman and George Athanasopoulos. 2018. Forecasting: Principles and Practice (2nd ed.). OTexts, Australia

work page 2018
[7]

Rob J Hyndman, Anne B Koehler, Ralph D Snyder, and Simone Grose. 2002. A state space framework for automatic forecasting using exponential smoothing methods. International Journal of Forecasting 18, 3 (2002), 439–454. https: //doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2070(01)00110-8

doi:10.1016/s0169-2070(01)00110-8 2002
[8]

Schmidt, Jonathan Weber, Geoffrey I

Hassan Ismail Fawaz, Benjamin Lucas, Germain Forestier, Charlotte Pelletier, Daniel F. Schmidt, Jonathan Weber, Geoffrey I. Webb, Lhassane Idoumghar, Pierre- Alain Muller, and François Petitjean. 2020. InceptionTime: Finding AlexNet for time series classification. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 34, 6 (Sept. 2020), 1936–1962. https://doi.org/10.1007/s...

doi:10.1007/s10618-020-00710-y 2020

Show all 18 references

[9]

Guolin Ke, Qi Meng, Thomas Finley, Taifeng Wang, Wei Chen, Weidong Ma, Qiwei Ye, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2017. LightGBM: a highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (Long Beach, Calif...

2017
[10]

Spyros Makridakis and Michele Hibon. 2000. The M3-Competition: Results, Conclusions and Implications. International Journal of Forecasting 16 (10 2000), 451–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2070(00)00057-1

2000 doi
[11]

Hamid Mohammadi. 2021. croston: Intermittent Demand Forecasting Methods in Python. https://pypi.org/project/croston/. Version 0.1.2.4

2021
[12]

Hyndman, and Thiyanga S

Pablo Montero-Manso, George Athanasopoulos, Rob J. Hyndman, and Thiyanga S. Talagala. 2020. FFORMA: Feature-based forecast model averaging. International Journal of Forecasting 36, 1 (2020), 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast. 2019.02.011 M4 Competition

2020 doi
[13]

Nguyen, Phanwadee Sinthong, and Jayant Kalagnanam

Yuqi Nie, Nam H. Nguyen, Phanwadee Sinthong, and Jayant Kalagnanam. 2023. A Time Series is Worth 64 Words: Long-term Forecasting with Transformers. arXiv:2211.14730 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.14730

2023 arXiv
[14]

Olivares, Cristian Challú, Federico Garza, Max Mergenthaler Canseco, and Artur Dubrawski

Kin G. Olivares, Cristian Challú, Federico Garza, Max Mergenthaler Canseco, and Artur Dubrawski. 2022. NeuralForecast: User friendly state-of-the-art neural forecasting models. PyCon Salt Lake City, Utah, US 2022. https://github.com/ Nixtla/neuralforecast

2022
[15]

David Salinas, Valentin Flunkert, and Jan Gasthaus. 2019. DeepAR: Probabilistic Forecasting with Autoregressive Recurrent Networks. arXiv:1704.04110 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.04110

2019 arXiv
[16]

Skipper Seabold and Josef Perktold. 2010. Statsmodels: Econometric and statistical modeling with python. In 9th Python in Science Conference

2010
[17]

Syntetos and John E

Aris A. Syntetos and John E. Boylan. 2005. The accuracy of intermittent demand estimates. International Journal of Forecasting 21, 2 (2005), 303–314. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2004.10.001

2005 doi
[18]

Talagala, Rob J

Thiyanga S. Talagala, Rob J. Hyndman, and George Athanasopou- los. 2023. Meta-learning how to forecast time series. Journal of Forecasting 42, 6 (2023), 1476–1501. https://doi.org/10.1002/for.2963 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/for.2963

2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

[n. d.]. https://www.kaggle.com/c/favorita-grocery-sales-forecasting

work page

[2] [2]

Abdur Chowdhury, Rajesh Paul, and Farhana Zaman Rozony. 2025. A SYS- TEMATIC REVIEW OF DEMAND FORECASTING MODELS FOR RETAIL E- COMMERCE ENHANCING ACCURACY IN INVENTORY AND DELIVERY PLANNING. International Journal of Scientific Interdisciplinary Research 06 (03 2025), 01–27. https://doi.org/10.63125/mbbfw637

work page doi:10.63125/mbbfw637 2025

[3] [3]

J.D. Croston. 1972. Forecasting and stock control for intermittent demands. Operational Research Quarterly 23, 3 (1972), 289–303

work page 1972

[4] [4]

Linda Eglite and Ilze Birzniece. 2022. Retail Sales Forecasting Using Deep Learn- ing: Systematic Literature Review. Complex Systems Informatics and Modeling Quarterly 0 (04 2022), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.7250/csimq.2022-30.03

work page doi:10.7250/csimq.2022-30.03 2022

[5] [5]

Jeffrey L. Elman. 1990. Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science 14, 2 (1990), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(90)90002-E

doi:10.1016/0364-0213(90)90002-e 1990

[6] [6]

Robin John Hyndman and George Athanasopoulos. 2018. Forecasting: Principles and Practice (2nd ed.). OTexts, Australia

work page 2018

[7] [7]

Rob J Hyndman, Anne B Koehler, Ralph D Snyder, and Simone Grose. 2002. A state space framework for automatic forecasting using exponential smoothing methods. International Journal of Forecasting 18, 3 (2002), 439–454. https: //doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2070(01)00110-8

doi:10.1016/s0169-2070(01)00110-8 2002

[8] [8]

Schmidt, Jonathan Weber, Geoffrey I

Hassan Ismail Fawaz, Benjamin Lucas, Germain Forestier, Charlotte Pelletier, Daniel F. Schmidt, Jonathan Weber, Geoffrey I. Webb, Lhassane Idoumghar, Pierre- Alain Muller, and François Petitjean. 2020. InceptionTime: Finding AlexNet for time series classification. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 34, 6 (Sept. 2020), 1936–1962. https://doi.org/10.1007/s...

doi:10.1007/s10618-020-00710-y 2020