| Literature DB >> 36268142 |
Song Tingting1, Wang Jiaying1, Feng Nan1.
Abstract
In order to further improve regional economic innovation capability and governance level and solve the problems of lack of attention to evaluation indicators in traditional evaluation methods of regional economic innovation capability and easy to be affected by subjective factors, an evaluation model based on neural network algorithm is proposed. Through re-analysis of regional economic innovation capability evaluation indexes, the model defines the most reasonable combination of characteristics by combining information gain characteristic selection strategy and finally builds a scientific evaluation index system. By testing the prediction accuracy of the experimental discovery model and evaluation index, the neural network model improves by 41% compared with the traditional subjective evaluation method, and the accuracy increases by 20% compared with the GA-BP neural network model. The experiment proves the stability and good convergence effect of the evaluation model.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36268142 PMCID: PMC9578852 DOI: 10.1155/2022/8198453
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Structure of BP neural network.
Figure 2BP neural network training flowchart.
1–9 scale rules.
| Importance scale | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 1 | The former is as important to me as the latter j |
| 3 | The former |
| 5 | The former |
| 7 | The former |
| 9 | The former |
| 2, 4, 6, 8 | The importance of |
| Reciprocal of the above values | The importance degree of index |
1–9 average random consistency indicators.
| Order number | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RI | 0 | 0 | 0.53 | 0.90 | 1.13 | 1.25 | 1.36 | 1.41 | 1.46 | 1.49 | 1.52 | 1.54 |
Figure 3Example decision tree.
The results of classification of nodes at different latency levels.
| The serial number | MSE | Training time (seconds) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of nodes = 4 | Number of nodes = 5 | Number of nodes = 4 | Number of nodes = 5 | |
| 1 | 0.0058 | 0.0818 | 0.0342 | 0.0532 |
| 2 | 0.0008 | 0.0707 | 0.0685 | 0.9665 |
| 3 | 0.0041 | 0.0033 | 0.0481 | 0.0565 |
| 4 | 0.0098 | 0.0296 | 0.0604 | 0.0508 |
| 5 | 0.0044 | 0.1546 | 0.x0490 | 0.0603 |
| On average | 0.0050 | 0.0679 | 0.1136 | 0.2375 |
Figure 4Simplified schematic diagram of the regional innovation system.
Index system of regional innovation capability evaluation.
| First-level index | The secondary indicators | Logo |
|---|---|---|
| Innovation resources | (1). Proportion of enterprises with R&D institutions in industrial enterprises (%) | X1 |
| (2). Number of scientific papers of ten thousand people (papers/ten thousand people) | X2 | |
| (3). Invention patent ownership of ten thousand people (pieces/ten thousand people) | X3 | |
| (4). Cost of fixed assets technology investment (%) | X4 | |
|
| ||
| Investment in innovation | (1). Full-time researchers and researchers are equivalent to 10,000 people (person year/ten thousand) | X5 |
| (2). Research and development (R&D) spending (%) | X6 | |
| (3). R&D expenses of enterprises as a percentage of R&D expenses (%) | X7 | |
| (4). Research and development expenditures as a percentage of major business revenues (%) | X8 | |
| (5). Proportion of enterprise technology acquisition and expenditure on technical transformation in major operating income (%) | X9 | |
| (6). Share of corporate research and development (R&D) expenses in universities and research institutes (%) | X10 | |
|
| ||
| Innovation performance | (1). The value of the technical product is ten thousand yuan (ten thousand yuan/ten thousand yuan) | X11 |
| (2). The proportion of high-tech enterprises in industrial enterprises (%) | X12 | |
| (3). The ratio of the main operating income of the high-tech industry to the main operating income of the industry (%) | X13 | |
| (4). The proportion of new product sales revenue to the main business revenue (%) | X14 | |
| (5). Labor productivity (ten thousand yuan/person) | X15 | |
| (6). Output rate of comprehensive energy consumption (yuan/kg standard coal) | X16 | |
|
| ||
| Innovation environment | (1). Number of people with college degree or above (people/ten thousand) | X17 |
| (2). Government spending on education is part of GDP (%) | X18 | |
| (3). The ratio of local financial and technical expenditures to local fiscal expenditures (%) | X19 | |
| (4). The ratio of investment in fixed assets to information transmission, software, and information technology services (%) | X20 | |
Figure 5Comparison of mean square deviation.
Figure 6Variation of errors of the three models with training times.
Comparison of assessment accuracy of the three models.
| Category | DTGA-BP (%) | GA-BP (%) | BP (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | 98.22 | 78.71 | 57.18 |
Comparison of error indicators of the three models.
| Category | DTGA-BP | GA-BP | BP |
|---|---|---|---|
| MAE | 0.2653 | 0.3320 | 0.4454 |
| RMSE | 0.3565 | 0.4278 | 0.6240 |
Figure 7Comparison of generalization ability of the three models.
Evaluation results of regional innovation capability.
| Provinces | Level of regional innovation ability | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Innovation environment | Investment in innovation | Innovation output | Innovation configuration | The overall | |
| Beijing | Excellent | Excellent | Excellent | Excellent | Excellent |
| Tientsin | Good | Medium | Medium | Good | Good |
| Hebei | Excellent | Good | Medium | Medium | Medium |
| Shanxi | Good | Medium | Bad | Bad | Medium |
| Inner Mongolia | Good | Medium | Bad | Medium | Bad |
| Liaoning | Excellent | Medium | Medium | Good | Good |
| Ji Lin | Good | Medium | Bad | Bad | Medium |
| Heilongjiang | Good | Medium | Medium | Bad | Medium |
| Shanghai | Excellent | Good | Good | Medium | Excellent |
| Jiangsu | Excellent | Good | Good | Excellent | Excellent |
| Zhejiang | Excellent | Medium | Good | Excellent | Excellent |
| Anhui | Excellent | Good | Medium | Excellent | Medium |
| Fujian | Good | Good | Medium | Bad | Good |
| Jiangxi | Good | Medium | Bad | Good | Medium |
| Shandong | Excellent | Excellent | Good | Medium | Good |
| Henan | Excellent | Good | Medium | Good | Medium |
| Hubei | Good | Good | Good | Bad | Good |
| Hunan | Excellent | Good | Medium | Good | Good |
| Guangdong | Excellent | Good | Good | Good | Excellent |
| Guangxi | Good | Medium | Bad | Excellent | Medium |
| Hunan | Medium | Bad | Bad | Medium | Bad |
| Chongqing | Good | Medium | Medium | Good | Medium |
| Sichuan | Excellent | Good | Medium | Good | Good |
| Guizhou | Good | Bad | Bad | Medium | Bad |
| Yunnan | Good | Medium | Medium | Bad | Medium |
| Tibet | Bad | Bad | Bad | Bad | Bad |
| Shanxi | Excellent | Good | Good | Medium | Good |
| Gansu | Good | Medium | Bad | Medium | Bad |
| Qinghai | Bad | Bad | Bad | Bad | Bad |
| Ningxia | Medium | Bad | Bad | Bad | Bad |
| Xinjiang | Good | Bad | Bad | Medium | Bad |
Figure 8Degree of commonality of variables.
Figure 9Variance contribution matrix.
Figure 10Rubble diagram.
Scores and rankings of regional innovation ability.
| Year | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Indicators | U | Ranking | U | Ranking | U | Ranking | Ranking | U | Ranking | |
| Shanghai | 143.06 | 1 | 135.49 | 1 | 130.84 | 1 | 119.44 | 1 | 107.81 | 1 |
| Jiangsu | 93.03 | 2 | 87.42 | 2 | 97.55 | 2 | 89.19 | 2 | 103.67 | 2 |
| Zhenjiang | 59.89 | 3 | 66.59 | 3 | 60.85 | 3 | 68.46 | 3 | 61.32 | 3 |
| Anhui | −16.31 | 6 | −16.50 | 7 | -22.32 | 7 | -10.42 | 6 | 16.31 | 4 |
| Jiangxi | −43.93 | 8 | −52.16 | 8 | -45.43 | 8 | -47.85 | 8 | -19.95 | 8 |
| Hubei | −17.59 | 7 | −15.33 | 6 | -19.39 | 6 | -14.71 | 7 | -16.17 | 6 |
| Hunan | −0.91 | 5 | 15.75 | 4 | 1.88 | 5 | 24.83 | 4 | -0.66 | 5 |
| Chongqing | 2.09 | 4 | −3.24 | 5 | 22.17 | 4 | 6.60 | 5 | −18.94 | 7 |
| Sichuan | −60.27 | 9 | −69.01 | 10 | −57.58 | 9 | −60.56 | 9 | −53.40 | 9 |
| Yunnan | −87.81 | 11 | −85.65 | 11 | −89.75 | 11 | −90.65 | 11 | −81.12 | 10 |
| Guizhou | −71.24 | 10 | −63.3 | 9 | −78.83 | 10 | −84.33 | 10 | −98.88 | 11 |
Figure 11Changes in the ranking of regional innovation ability.
Figure 12Variation of regional innovation capability gap.
Classification of regional innovation capability.
| Category | Provinces and cities |
|---|---|
| Strong | Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang |
| Medium | Hunan, Chongqing, Anhui, Hubei |
| Weak | Jiangxi, Sichuan, Guizhou, Yunnan |