
Non-equidistance DGM(1, 1) Model Based on the Concave Sequence and Its Application to Predict the China's Per Capita Natural Gas Consumption
Xinhai KONG, Yong ZHAO, Jiajia CHEN
Journal of Systems Science and Information ›› 2018, Vol. 6 ›› Issue (4) : 376-384.
Non-equidistance DGM(1, 1) Model Based on the Concave Sequence and Its Application to Predict the China's Per Capita Natural Gas Consumption
Although the grey forecasting model has been successfully adopted in various fields and demonstrated promising results, the literatures show its performance could be further improved, such as for the DGM(1, 1) model, based on a concave sequence, the modeling error will be larger. In this paper, firstly the definition of sequence convexity is given out, and it is proved that the output sequence of DGM(1, 1) model is a convex sequence. Next, the residual change law of DGM(1, 1) model based on the concave sequence is discussed, and the non-equidistance DGM(1, 1) model is proposed. Finally, by introducing the symmetry transformation, a concave sequence is transformed into a convex sequence, called the symmetric sequence of the concave sequence, and then construct the non-equidistance DGM(1, 1) model based on the convex sequence. The example results show that the novel method is more accurate than the direct modeling for a concave sequence.
DGM (1, 1) Model / concave sequence / initialization / symmetry transformation / non-equidistance DGM (1, 1) model {{custom_keyword}} /
Table 1 Simulated results of two models from 2009 to 2015 |
Year | Raw data | DGM(1, 1) model | The method in this paper | ||||||
Simulated value | Relative error (%) | Initialization sequence | Symmetric sequence | Gap | Simulated value | Relative error (%) | |||
2009 | 13.3 | 13.3000 | 0 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 13.3000 | 0 | |
2010 | 17.0 | 17.9252 | 5.4421 | 1.2782 | 1.0510 | 1.0367 | 17.2013 | 1.1842 | |
2011 | 19.7 | 19.4497 | 1.2706 | 1.4812 | 1.1735 | 1.0130 | 19.4560 | 1.2384 | |
2012 | 21.3 | 21.1039 | 0.9207 | 1.6015 | 1.3744 | 0.9870 | 21.3329 | 0.1544 | |
2013 | 23.8 | 22.8988 | 3.7866 | 1.7895 | 1.5110 | 1.0083 | 23.8498 | 0.2091 | |
2014 | 25.1 | 24.8463 | 1.0106 | 1.8872 | 1.7333 | 0.9799 | 24.9898 | 0.4390 | |
2015 | 26.2 | 26.9595 | 2.8989 | 1.9699 | 1.5556 | 0.9751 | 26.2836 | 0.3190 | |
Average relativeerror (%) | 2.1899 | 0.5063 |
Table 2 Predicted values of two models from 2016 to 2018 |
Year | Predicted values of DGM(1, 1) model | Predicted values of the method in this paper (Δtk = 1) |
2016 | 29.2524 | 28.0965 |
2017 | 31.7404 | 28.8223 |
2018 | 34.4399 | 29.0962 |
1 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
2 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
3 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
4 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
5 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
6 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
7 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
8 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
9 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
10 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
11 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
12 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
13 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
14 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
15 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
16 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
17 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
18 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
19 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
20 |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
{{custom_ref.label}} |
{{custom_citation.content}}
{{custom_citation.annotation}}
|
/
〈 |
|
〉 |