| Literature DB >> 35440890 |
Atul Kumar Dwivedi1, Umadevi Kaliyaperumal Subramanian2, Jinsa Kuruvilla3, Aby Thomas3, D Shanthi4, Anandakumar Haldorai5.
Abstract
For several years, time-series prediction seems to have been a popular research topic. Sales plans, ECG forecasts, meteorological circumstances, and even COVID-19 spreading projections are among its uses. These implementations have inspired several scientists to develop an optimum forecasting method; however, the modeling method varies as the implementation domain evolves. Telemetry data prediction is an important component of networking and information center control software. As a generalization of such a fuzzy system, the concept of an intuitionistic fuzzified set was created, which has proven to become a highly valuable tool in dealing with indeterminacy (hesitation) as in-network. Indeterminacy is frequently overlooked in applying fuzzified time-series prediction for no obvious cause. We introduce the concept of intuitionistic fuzzified time series within a current study to deal with non-determinism with time-series prediction. Also, it seems to be an intuitionistic fuzzified time-series prediction framework. Using time-series information, the suggested intuitionistic fuzzified time-series predicting approach employs intuitionistic fuzzified logical relationships. The suggested method's effectiveness is tested using two-time sequence data sets. By contrasting the predicted result with some other intuitionistic timing series predicting techniques utilizing root-mean-square inaccuracy and averaged predicting errors, the usefulness of the suggested intuitionistic fuzzified time-series predicting approach is demonstrated.Entities:
Keywords: Hesitation; Intuitionistic fuzzy subsets; Time-series information
Year: 2022 PMID: 35440890 PMCID: PMC9010935 DOI: 10.1007/s00500-022-07053-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Soft comput ISSN: 1432-7643 Impact factor: 3.732
Fig. 1Architecture of the LSTM
Time-series fuzzification
| Member values × 100 | Non-member values × 100 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 95 | 7 | 2 | 5 | 90 | 96 |
| 2 | 3 | 94 | 6 | 100 | 5 | 89 | 97 |
| 3 | 4 | 45 | 72 | 9 | 44 | 18 | 87 |
| 4 | 3 | 94 | 6 | 100 | 5 | 89 | 97 |
| 5 | 2 | 95 | 7 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 96 |
| 6 | 5 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 7 | 6 | 10 | 82 | 30 | 85 | 85 | 61 |
| 8 | 8 | 0 | 100 | 99 | 99 | 98 | 1 |
Fig. 2Minimum temperature for the time series on a daily basis
Forecasting results of the minimum temperature for the time series daily
| Test data | MLP-ANN | PS-ANN | C-FTS | FTS-N | DIFTS-LSTM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15.45 | 10.15 | 10.65 | 10.45 | 11.40 | 10.70 |
| 14.55 | 11.50 | 13.55 | 14.95 | 14.75 | 10.85 |
| 09.70 | 11.25 | 09.80 | 06.00 | 12.45 | 11.75 |
| 13.05 | 09.05 | 07.85 | 10.15 | 08.75 | 10.35 |
| 10.25 | 11.15 | 12.65 | 10.45 | 13.15 | 10.40 |
| 08.05 | 09.75 | 09.15 | 10.45 | 09.60 | 08.80 |
| 08.51 | 08.15 | 07.95 | 07.35 | 08.65 | 08.45 |
| RMSE | 2.45 | 2.35 | 2.35 | 2.25 | 1.95 |
| MAE | 1.95 | 1.80 | 1.75 | 1.75 | 1.35 |
Fig. 3Comparison of the proposed methods with the test set