Improving Deep Learning Models by Bayesian Optimization to Predict Crude Oil Prices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We implement, optimize, and compare the performance of deep learning models in forecasting prices of crude oil markets, namely West Texas Intermediate (WTI) and Brent. We focus on deep learning models as these are state-of-the-art forecasting systems for complex and nonlinear time series. In this regard, we implement convolutional neural networks (CNNs), long short-term memory (LSTM), and gated recurrent units (GRUs). Classical recurrent neural networks (RNNs) are chosen as the baseline artificial neural networks. We contribute to the literature by examining the effect of fine-tuning of the parameters of the predictive systems by means of Bayesian optimization (BO) on their performance. Also, to check the robustness of the optimized models, they are trained and tested on daily, weekly, and monthly data. The assessment of forecasting performance is based on three different metrics including the root mean of squared errors (RMSE), mean absolute deviation (MAD), and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE). The simulation results show that the GRU-BO and RNN-BO are respectively the best systems to predict prices of BRENT and WTI. In addition, the simulation results show that BO enhances the accuracy of the predictive models. The results obtained would help oil producers, suppliers, traders, and investors to implement the appropriate prediction system for each market to improve accuracy and generate profits for each time horizon.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".