Selecting Forecasting Methods via Literature Prominence and Accuracy Testing: Evidence From Container Throughput Forecasting

IF 2.6 3区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Journal of Forecasting Pub Date : 2026-08-05 Epub Date: 2026-05-13 DOI:10.1002/for.70178
Kamal Sanguri
{"title":"Selecting Forecasting Methods via Literature Prominence and Accuracy Testing: Evidence From Container Throughput Forecasting","authors":"Kamal Sanguri","doi":"10.1002/for.70178","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Selecting methods for monthly container throughput forecasting has become more difficult in the post-COVID period because the literature now offers a wider set of classical, decomposition-based, machine learning, and deep learning approaches. This study develops a literature-based Preference Index (PI) to capture method-family prominence and combines it with rolling-origin forecast evaluation using monthly throughput data, measured in twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs), from the Port of Los Angeles, the Port of Singapore Authority, and Hong Kong Port. The PI combines use, citation influence, and co-mention embeddedness to shortlist method families rather than to rank them by forecasting superiority. The empirical phase evaluates representative univariate models: Error–Trend–Seasonal models (ETS), seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average models (SARIMA), seasonal-trend decomposition using Loess (STL)-based models as representatives of the Ensemble/Hybrid PI family, artificial neural network/multilayer perceptron models (ANN/MLP), and long short-term memory/recurrent neural network models (LSTM/RNN), across 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month horizons. Accuracy is assessed using mean absolute scaled error (MASE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), root mean squared error (RMSE), Diebold–Mariano tests, and Model Confidence Set (MCS) analysis. Results show that classical and decomposition-based methods remain strong forecasting anchors, but the best specification differs by port: STL + ARIMA performs best for Los Angeles, STL + ETS and SARIMA are strongest for Singapore depending on horizon, while ETS and SARIMA lead for Hong Kong. The lightly specified univariate neural models do not consistently outperform these alternatives. The study offers a transparent screen-and-test workflow and helps clarify when classical models may suffice and when learning-based approaches may require richer information.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47835,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Forecasting","volume":"45 6","pages":"3041-3057"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Forecasting","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/for.70178","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/5/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Selecting methods for monthly container throughput forecasting has become more difficult in the post-COVID period because the literature now offers a wider set of classical, decomposition-based, machine learning, and deep learning approaches. This study develops a literature-based Preference Index (PI) to capture method-family prominence and combines it with rolling-origin forecast evaluation using monthly throughput data, measured in twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs), from the Port of Los Angeles, the Port of Singapore Authority, and Hong Kong Port. The PI combines use, citation influence, and co-mention embeddedness to shortlist method families rather than to rank them by forecasting superiority. The empirical phase evaluates representative univariate models: Error–Trend–Seasonal models (ETS), seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average models (SARIMA), seasonal-trend decomposition using Loess (STL)-based models as representatives of the Ensemble/Hybrid PI family, artificial neural network/multilayer perceptron models (ANN/MLP), and long short-term memory/recurrent neural network models (LSTM/RNN), across 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month horizons. Accuracy is assessed using mean absolute scaled error (MASE), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), root mean squared error (RMSE), Diebold–Mariano tests, and Model Confidence Set (MCS) analysis. Results show that classical and decomposition-based methods remain strong forecasting anchors, but the best specification differs by port: STL + ARIMA performs best for Los Angeles, STL + ETS and SARIMA are strongest for Singapore depending on horizon, while ETS and SARIMA lead for Hong Kong. The lightly specified univariate neural models do not consistently outperform these alternatives. The study offers a transparent screen-and-test workflow and helps clarify when classical models may suffice and when learning-based approaches may require richer information.

通过文献显著性和准确性检验选择预测方法:来自集装箱吞吐量预测的证据
在后covid时期,选择每月集装箱吞吐量预测的方法变得更加困难,因为文献现在提供了更广泛的经典、基于分解、机器学习和深度学习方法。本研究开发了一个基于文献的偏好指数(PI),以捕捉方法族的突出性,并将其与使用洛杉矶港、新加坡港务局和香港港的每月吞吐量数据(以20英尺当量单位(teu)衡量)的滚动起源预测评估相结合。PI结合使用、引用影响和共同提及嵌入性来列出方法家族,而不是通过预测优势来对它们进行排名。经验阶段评估了代表性的单变量模型:误差趋势-季节模型(ETS)、季节性自回归综合移动平均模型(SARIMA)、以黄土(STL)为基础的季节趋势分解模型(Ensemble/Hybrid PI系列的代表)、人工神经网络/多层感知器模型(ANN/MLP)和长短期记忆/循环神经网络模型(LSTM/RNN),跨度为1个月、3个月、6个月和12个月。使用平均绝对比例误差(MASE)、平均绝对百分比误差(MAPE)、均方根误差(RMSE)、Diebold-Mariano检验和模型置信集(MCS)分析评估准确性。结果表明,经典方法和基于分解的方法仍然是强有力的预测锚,但最佳规范因港口而异:STL + ARIMA在洛杉矶表现最好,STL + ETS和SARIMA在新加坡表现最好,而ETS和SARIMA在香港表现最好。轻度指定的单变量神经模型并不总是优于这些替代方案。这项研究提供了一个透明的筛选和测试工作流程,并有助于澄清什么时候经典模型可能足够,什么时候基于学习的方法可能需要更丰富的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
91
期刊介绍: The Journal of Forecasting is an international journal that publishes refereed papers on forecasting. It is multidisciplinary, welcoming papers dealing with any aspect of forecasting: theoretical, practical, computational and methodological. A broad interpretation of the topic is taken with approaches from various subject areas, such as statistics, economics, psychology, systems engineering and social sciences, all encouraged. Furthermore, the Journal welcomes a wide diversity of applications in such fields as business, government, technology and the environment. Of particular interest are papers dealing with modelling issues and the relationship of forecasting systems to decision-making processes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书