4.6 Article

Evaluation of Deep Learning Models for Multi-Step Ahead Time Series Prediction

Journal

IEEE ACCESS
Volume 9, Issue -, Pages 83105-83123

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3085085

Keywords

Time series analysis; Predictive models; Forecasting; Deep learning; Neural networks; Biological system modeling; Biological neural networks; Recurrent neural networks; LSTM networks; convolutional neural networks; deep learning; time series prediction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluates the performance of deep learning models for multi-step ahead time series prediction, and finds that bidirectional and encoder-decoder LSTM networks show the best accuracy in given time series problems.
Time series prediction with neural networks has been the focus of much research in the past few decades. Given the recent deep learning revolution, there has been much attention in using deep learning models for time series prediction, and hence it is important to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses. In this paper, we present an evaluation study that compares the performance of deep learning models for multi-step ahead time series prediction. The deep learning methods comprise simple recurrent neural networks, long short-term memory (LSTM) networks, bidirectional LSTM networks, encoder-decoder LSTM networks, and convolutional neural networks. We provide a further comparison with simple neural networks that use stochastic gradient descent and adaptive moment estimation (Adam) for training. We focus on univariate time series for multi-step-ahead prediction from benchmark time-series datasets and provide a further comparison of the results with related methods from the literature. The results show that the bidirectional and encoder-decoder LSTM network provides the best performance in accuracy for the given time series problems.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available