Smallest RMSE Value Research Articles

Comparison between GSTAR and GSTAR-Kalman Filter models on inflation rate forecasting in East Java

Up to now, we often find data which have correlation between time and location. This data also known as spatial data. Inflation rate is one type of spatial data because it is not only related to the events of the previous time, but also has relevance to the other location or elsewhere. In this research, we do comparison between GSTAR model and GSTAR-Kalman Filter to get prediction which have small error rate. Kalman Filter is one estimator that estimates state changes due to noise from white noise. The final result shows that Kalman Filter is able to improve the GSTAR forecast result. This is shown through simulation results in the form of graphs and clarified with smaller RMSE values.

Modelling of Multi Input Transfer Function for Rainfall Forecasting in Batu City

The aim of this research is to model and forecast the rainfall in Batu City using multi input transfer function model based on air temperature, humidity, wind speed and cloud. Transfer function model is a multivariate time series model which consists of an output series (Yt) sequence expected to be effected by an input series (Xt) and other inputs in a group called a noise series (Nt). Multi input transfer function model obtained is (b1,s1,r1) (b2,s2,r2) (b3,s3,r3) (b4,s4,r4)(pn,qn) = (0,0,0) (23,0,0) (1,2,0) (0,0,0) ([5,8],2) and shows that air temperature on t-day affects rainfall on t-day, rainfall on t-day is influenced by air humidity in the previous 23 days, rainfall on t-day is affected by wind speed in the previous day , and rainfall on day t is affected by clouds on day t. The results of rainfall forecasting in Batu City with multi input transfer function model can be said to be accurate, because it produces relatively small RMSE value. The value of RMSE data forecasting training is 7.7921 while forecasting data testing is 4.2184. Multi-input transfer function model is suitable for rainfall in Batu City.

Effect of satellite based rainfall products on river basin responses of runoff simulation on flood event

Physically-based distributed hydrological modelling, Rainfall-Runoff-Inundation (RRI) model is used to evaluate runoff accuracy by using six satellite based rainfall products such as GPM, GSMaP, TRMM 3B42V7, CMORPH, and PERSIANN. These products input to drive the model on the Nan River basin, Thailand that is the watershed of 13,000 km2. The performance of the precipitation products, rainfall depth and runoff, was evaluated from storm event on 2014 by using statistical approach, Volume bias, Peak bias, RMSE, Correlation, and Mean bias, to compare with observation data. Overall of the satellite based products, the CMORPH and GPM performed the best that was provided by the statistical values, comparing with average observed rainfall data. For the runoff estimated from GPM closed to the observed data and was better than other five products, satellite and rain gauge, to provide the high correlation and small RMSE value. This study presents the uncertainty of satellites that have a potential for runoff estimation to apply for water resources management.

A Comparison of Several Methods for Analyzing Censored Data

The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of several methods for statistically analyzing censored datasets [i.e. datasets that contain measurements that are less than the field limit-of-detection (LOD)] when estimating the 95th percentile and the mean of right-skewed occupational exposure data. The methods examined were several variations on the maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) and log-probit regression (LPR) methods, the common substitution methods, several non-parametric (NP) quantile methods for the 95th percentile and the NP Kaplan-Meier (KM) method. Each method was challenged with computer-generated censored datasets for a variety of plausible scenarios where the following factors were allowed to vary randomly within fairly wide ranges: the true geometric standard deviation, the censoring point or LOD and the sample size. This was repeated for both a single-laboratory scenario (i.e. single LOD) and a multiple-laboratory scenario (i.e. three LODs) as well as a single lognormal distribution scenario and a contaminated lognormal distribution scenario. Each method was used to estimate the 95th percentile and mean for the censored datasets (the NP quantile methods estimated only the 95th percentile). For each scenario, the method bias and overall imprecision (as indicated by the root mean square error or rMSE) were calculated for the 95th percentile and mean. No single method was unequivocally superior across all scenarios, although nearly all of the methods excelled in one or more scenarios. Overall, only the MLE- and LPR-based methods performed well across all scenarios, with the robust versions generally showing less bias than the standard versions when challenged with a contaminated lognormal distribution and multiple LODs. All of the MLE- and LPR-based methods were remarkably robust to departures from the lognormal assumption, nearly always having lower rMSE values than the NP methods for the exposure scenarios postulated. In general, the MLE methods tended to have smaller rMSE values than the LPR methods, particularly for the small sample size scenarios. The substitution methods tended to be strongly biased, but in some scenarios had the smaller rMSE values, especially for sample sizes <20. Surprisingly, the various NP methods were not as robust as expected, performing poorly in the contaminated distribution scenarios for both the 95th percentile and the mean. In conclusion, when using the rMSE rather than bias as the preferred comparison metric, the standard MLE method consistently outperformed the so-called robust variations of the MLE-based and LPR-based methods, as well as the various NP methods, for both the 95th percentile and the mean. When estimating the mean, the standard LPR method tended to outperform the robust LPR-based methods. Whenever bias is the main consideration, the robust MLE-based methods should be considered. The KM method, currently hailed by some as the preferred method for estimating the mean when the lognormal distribution assumption is questioned, did not perform well for either the 95th percentile or mean and is not recommended.