MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221104919 · doi:10.28924/2291-8639-20-2022-17

Comparative Study of Wavelet-SARIMA and EMD-SARIMA for Forecasting Daily Temperature Series

2022· article· en· W4221104919 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Analysis and Applications · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of China
KeywordsAutoregressive integrated moving averageResidualHilbert–Huang transformSeries (stratigraphy)Model selectionAutoregressive modelTime seriesWaveletStatisticsSelection (genetic algorithm)EconometricsMathematicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims to find a forecasting model based on the comparative study of wavelet- ARIMA and EMD-ARIMA models and residual-based model selection technique for temperature time series. Time series analysis is essential in studying temperature data for investigating the variation and predicting the future trend, in which we can control the changes and make good decisions. And most important is to understand the trend in the series with time. This study applied hybridized models of wavelet transform and empirical mode decomposition with seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average (SARIMA), which combines two models to get better accuracy, for forecasting daily average temperature time series data in the central region of Eritrea, Asmara. Daily data was collected for 30 years, from January 1, 1991, to December 31, 2020. The study compares WT-SARIMA and EMD-SARIMA models to find a well fit and better forecasting model. Model selection techniques are essential for time series analysis to determine which model best fits our data. AIC and BIC are the most used methods in model selection. This paper uses an additional method based on the residual series. In estimating accurate parameters, the structure of the residual sequence had a lot of connection, in which a stationary residual depict an accurate estimation. From this perspective, a nonstationarity measurement of the residual series is used for model selection. The relative performance is based on the predictive capability of sample forecasts assessed. The results indicate that the hybridized wavelet-SARIMA model is more effective than the other models, and MATLAB soft-wire is used for this analysis.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.466
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.312 · 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