# A basket of baselines **URL:** \ **Category:** Project Proposals\ **Created:** [5 August 2025 21:28 UTC](https://community.epinowcast.org/t/a-basket-of-baselines/325 "2025-08-05T21:28:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 15
**Author:** ![kath-sherratt](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex005/user_avatar/community.epinowcast.org/kath-sherratt/32/165_2.png) [@kath-sherratt](https://community.epinowcast.org/u/kath-sherratt)\ **Post date:** [26 January 2026 18:38 UTC](https://community.epinowcast.org/t/a-basket-of-baselines/325/15 "2026-01-26T18:38:06Z")
I’ve been thinking about this too. I think there’s still room for both the top-down and bottom-up approaches to suggesting baselines. (Top-down: evaluating across existing models’ error, considering predictability/other factors (with due respect to the chat over in the [that thread](https://community.epinowcast.org/t/do-your-evaluations-have-enough-power/366/8)), and breaking down the variance into identifiable components (eg with PCA). Or bottom up: doing the rounds of expert elicitation from different modelling families, identifying some minimum standards (sufficient conditions) for a “valid” model from each, and building with that.) Idealistically, these two approaches would kinda meet in the middle in a model confidence set… > I guess the following question would then be for what. Definitely agree. Perhaps that is a good motivation for why we need a basket. Maybe links back to your post (since I just came across it again) [Asking your mum if your idea is good](https://community.epinowcast.org/t/asking-your-mum-if-your-idea-is-good/337) --- _[View the full topic](https://community.epinowcast.org/t/a-basket-of-baselines/325)._