Comparison of the Short-Term Forecasting Accuracy on Battery Electric Vehicle between Modified Bass and Lotka-Volterra Model: A Case Study of China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The potential demand of battery electric vehicle (BEV) is the base of the decision-making to the government policy formulation, enterprise manufacture capacity expansion, and charging infrastructure construction. How to predict the future amount of BEV accurately is very important to the development of BEV both in practice and in theory. The present paper tries to compare the short-term accuracy of a proposed modified Bass model and Lotka-Volterra (LV) model, by taking China’s BEV development as the case study. Using the statistics data of China’s BEV amount of 21 months from Jan 2015 to Sep 2016, we compare the simulation accuracy based on the value of mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) and discuss the forecasting capacity of the two models according to China’s government expectation. According to the MAPE value, the two models have good prediction accuracy, but the Bass model is more accurate than LV model. Bass model has only one dimension and focuses on the diffusion trend, while LV model has two dimensions and mainly describes the relationship and competing process between the two populations. In future research, the forecasting advantages of Bass model and LV model should be combined to get more accurate predicting effect.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".