Table 9.
The promoting percentages of the proposed model comparing to other experimental models.
| INDICES | COMPARISON MODELS | UK | INDIA | US |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PMAPE% (%) | Model 1 v.s. Model 2 | 12.75% | 14.09% | 11.34% |
| Model 1 v.s. Model 3 | 16.49% | 29.78% | 22.42% | |
| Model 1 v.s. Model 4 | 18.08% | 21.29% | 14.40% | |
| Model 1 v.s. Model 5 | 24.29% | 45.80% | 26.14% | |
| Model 1 v.s. Model 6 | 20.82% | 45.57% | 29.72% | |
| Model 1 v.s. Model 7 | 28.28% | 48.17% | 21.13% | |
| Model 1 v.s. Model 8 | 29.20% | 19.23% | 18.94% | |
| PMAE (%) | Model 1 v.s. Model 2 | 15.12% | 13.63% | 9.62% |
| Model 1 v.s. Model 3 | 18.65% | 29.60% | 16.76% | |
| Model 1 v.s. Model 4 | 15.78% | 25.07% | 16.11% | |
| Model 1 v.s. Model 5 | 27.51% | 45.35% | 19.07% | |
| Model 1 v.s. Model 6 | 23.79% | 45.12% | 25.45% | |
| Model 1 v.s. Model 7 | 31.40% | 47.73% | 19.03% | |
| Model 1 v.s. Model 8 | 28.59% | 22.29% | 19.53% | |
| PRMSE (%) | Model 1 v.s. Model 2 | 7.34% | 15.09% | 9.06% |
| Model 1 v.s. Model 3 | 10.39% | 29.93% | 11.02% | |
| Model 1 v.s. Model 4 | 4.83% | 21.66% | 7.01% | |
| Model 1 v.s. Model 5 | 16.91% | 46.62% | 14.37% | |
| Model 1 v.s. Model 6 | 14.02% | 46.57% | 27.65% | |
| Model 1 v.s. Model 7 | 20.83% | 48.67% | 19.98% | |
| Model 1 v.s. Model 8 | 20.41% | 22.82% | 19.65% | |
| Ppcc (%) | Model 1 v.s. Model 2 | 6.79% | 3.71% | 1.08% |
| Model 1 v.s. Model 3 | 7.16% | 3.80% | 0.50% | |
| Model 1 v.s. Model 4 | 3.32% | 6.33% | 0.95% | |
| Model 1 v.s. Model 5 | 7.18% | 8.67% | 0.35% | |
| Model 1 v.s. Model 6 | 7.30% | 8.98% | 0.98% | |
| Model 1 v.s. Model 7 | 7.27% | 9.88% | 0.71% | |
| Model 1 v.s. Model 8 | 3.58% | 4.69% | 1.89% |
Note: Where Model 1 is TCN-GRU-DBN-Q-SVM (the proposed model), Model 2 is TCN-GRU-DBN-Q, Model 3 is LSTM, Model 4 is N-BEATS, Model 5 is ANFIS, Model 6 is VMD-BP, Model 7 is WT-RVFL, Model 8 is ARIMA.Based on the experimental results, the following conclusions can be drawn.