Forecasting Nonlinear Time Series with Feed-Forward Neural Networks: A Case Study of Canadian Lynx Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The forecasting capabilities of feed-forward neural network (FFNN) models are compared to those of other competing time series models by carrying out forecasting experiments. As demonstrated by the detailed forecasting results for the Canadian lynx data set, FFNN models perform very well, especially when the series contains nonlinear and non-Gaussian characteristics. To compare the forecasting accuracy of a FFNN model with an alternative model, Pitman’s test is employed to ascertain if one model forecasts significantly better than another when generating one-step-ahead forecasts. Moreover, the residual-fit spread plot is utilized in a novel fashion in this paper to compare visually out-of-sample forecasts of two alternative forecasting models. Finally, forecasting findings on the lynx data are used to explain under what conditions one would expect FFNN models to furnish reliable and accurate forecasts. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. key words feed-forward neural networks; lynx data; Pitman’s test; SETAR model; visualization
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".