MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045963734 · doi:10.11113/jt.v70.3510

Time Series Forecasting using Least Square Support Vector Machine for Canadian Lynx Data

2014· article· en· W2045963734 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shuhaida Ismail, Ani Shabri

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Teknologi · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiti Teknologi MalaysiaMinistério da Ciência, Tecnologia e InovaçãoKementerian Sains, Teknologi dan Inovasi
KeywordsAutoregressive integrated moving averageSupport vector machineArtificial neural networkMean squared errorTime seriesSeries (stratigraphy)Mean absolute percentage errorComputer scienceFlexibility (engineering)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningAutoregressive modelData miningStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Time series analysis and forecasting is an active research area over the last few decades. There are various kinds of forecasting models have been developed and researchers have relied on statistical techniques to predict the future. This paper discusses the application of Least Square Support Vector Machine (LSSVM) models for Canadian Lynx forecasting. The objective of this paper is to examine the flexibility of LSSVM in time series forecasting by comparing it with other models in previous research such as Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), Auto-Regressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA), Feed-Forward Neural Networks (FNN), Self-Exciting Threshold Auto-Regression (SETAR), Zhang’s model, Aladang’s hybrid model and Support Vector Regression (SVR) model. The experiment results show that the LSSVM model outperforms the other models based on the criteria of Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and Mean Square Error (MSE). It also indicates that LSSVM provides a promising alternative technique in time series forecasting.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal TeknologiSame topicNeural Networks and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207