MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W250401243 · doi:10.3844/ajeassp.2015.57.62

An Evolving Autoregressive Predictor for Time Series Forecasting

2015· article· en· W250401243 on OpenAlexaff
Dezhi Li, Wilson Wang, Fathy Ismail

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoregressive modelOutlierSeries (stratigraphy)Time seriesComputer scienceAutoregressive integrated moving averageMean squared prediction errorFunction (biology)StatisticsMachine learningData miningArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autoregressive (AR) model is a common predictor that has been extensively used for time series forecasting. Many training methods can used to update AR model parameters, for instance, least square estimate and maximum likelihood estimate; however, both techniques are sensitive to noisy samples and outliers. To deal with the problems, an evolving AR predictor, EAR, is developed in this study to enhance prediction accuracy and mitigate the effect of noisy samples and outliers. The model parameters of EAR are trained with an Adaptive Least Square Estimate (ALSE) method, which can learn samples characteristics more effectively. In each training epoch, the ALSE weights the samples by their fitting accuracy. The samples with larger fitting errors will be given a larger penalty value in the cost function; however the penalties of difficult-to-predict samples will be adaptively reduced to enhance the prediction accuracy. The effectiveness of the developed EAR predictor is verified by simulation tests. Test results show that the proposed EAR predictor can capture the dynamics of the time series effectively and predict the future trend accurately.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.709
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Engineering and Applied SciencesSame topicStock Market Forecasting MethodsFrench-language works237,207