Comparative Analysis of LSTM and Traditional Time Series Models on Oil Price Data

Preprint

Article

Comparative Analysis of LSTM and Traditional Time Series Models on Oil Price Data

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Michael Brown,Emily Chen,

Sophia Lee^*

,James Taylor,Anna Kim,Robert Johnson

Michael Brown,Emily Chen,

Sophia Lee^*

,James Taylor,Anna Kim,Robert Johnson

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Altmetrics

Downloads

Views

Comments

Submitted:

28 October 2024

Posted:

30 October 2024

You are already at the latest version

Abstract

Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks have gained attention for their forecasting capabilities, especially in volatile markets like oil. This study compares LSTM networks with traditional time series models such as ARIMA and Exponential Smoothing in predicting oil prices. We analyze a comprehensive dataset of historical oil price movements and apply preprocessing techniques to ensure the reliability of our model training and evaluation processes. The models are evaluated using metrics like Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) to measure their forecasting performance. The results demonstrate that LSTM networks significantly outperform traditional time series models, effectively capturing price trends and fluctuations. Additionally, LSTM shows enhanced adaptability to sudden changes in the market, while traditional models tend to struggle in such scenarios. This comparative analysis underscores the significance of model selection in time series forecasting, especially for industries characterized by high volatility, and suggests a shift towards utilizing LSTM for enhanced financial forecasting accuracy. Future research may further investigate hybrid models that combine the strengths of both LSTM and traditional methodologies.

Keywords:

Subject:

Computer Science and Mathematics - Other

This preprints belongs to the Topic

Smart Energy Systems, 2nd Edition

1. Introduction

Recent advancements in Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) models have shown promising results in predicting financial data, including oil prices. For instance, Zhao et al. [1] explore using LSTM to forecast Brent crude oil prices, particularly considering the implications of a low-carbon transition. LSTM architectures have demonstrated effectiveness in capturing temporal dependencies crucial for time series forecasting.

Advancements in LSTM methods also include the development of hybrid models. For example, the LSTM with Sequential Self-Attention Mechanism (LSTM-SSAM) introduced by Pardeshi et al. [2] enhances forecasting accuracy, suggesting that integrating attention mechanisms can yield superior performance compared to traditional LSTM models. Similarly, Oak et al. [3] propose a Bidirectional Multivariate LSTM model, which showcases strong predictive capabilities for short-term equity prices.

Furthermore, Liu et al. [4] combine Graph Convolutional Networks with LSTM to leverage additional information from value chain data, outperforming standard models in predicting stock returns. This indicates the trend of enhancing LSTM applications by incorporating complementary data sources to improve overall forecasting accuracy in financial markets. The integration of these techniques into traditional time series frameworks could potentially lead to better insights and predictions in oil price forecasting.

However, when comparing LSTM models with traditional approaches, certain challenges emerge. The performance of LSTM models in anomaly detection and time-series forecasting has demonstrated superior results for specific tasks, such as DDoS attack detection, with accuracy surpassing 99.9% [5]. In contrast, traditional models, including random forest methods, exhibit strong adaptability in different contexts like predicting student behaviors, although they may not achieve the same level of accuracy in real-time anomaly detection scenarios [6]. Additionally, recommendation systems utilizing improved Markov models outperform conventional methods, further highlighting the potential advantages of contemporary modeling techniques over traditional ones [7]. Despite these advancements, gaps remain, particularly in the context of history-dependent data and emotional intelligence assessments where current methodologies may not fully capture intricacies [8,9]. Moreover, research into user credit assessment using fusion algorithms shows promise but may lack the holistic understanding provided by LSTM models [10]. Therefore, it is essential to address how LSTM frameworks can be optimized and better integrated with traditional models to enhance performance across various applications.

This study conducts a comparative analysis of Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks and traditional time series models for forecasting oil prices. Given the volatility and non-linearity of oil price movements, LSTM’s ability to capture long-term dependencies is contrasted with the performance of classical models like ARIMA and Exponential Smoothing. We utilize a comprehensive dataset of historical oil prices, applying various preprocessing techniques to ensure robustness in model training and evaluation. The models are assessed using several metrics, including Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), to determine their forecasting accuracy. Our findings indicate that LSTM significantly outperforms traditional models, showcasing superior abilities in predicting price trends and fluctuations. Furthermore, LSTM exhibits greater adaptability to sudden market changes, while traditional models often struggle under similar conditions. The results highlight the importance of model selection in time series forecasting, particularly in sectors as dynamic as oil markets. The implications of this analysis suggest a growing preference for LSTM in financial forecasting tasks, paving the way for future research to explore hybrid approaches that leverage the strengths of both methodologies.

Our Contributions. The major contributions of this study are as follows.

We conduct a detailed comparative analysis between LSTM networks and traditional time series forecasting models, specifically ARIMA and Exponential Smoothing, in the context of predicting oil prices. This provides significant insights into model performance under high volatility conditions.
The utilization of a comprehensive dataset and robust preprocessing techniques enhances the reliability of our findings, ensuring a thorough evaluation of the forecasting accuracy of each method.
Results demonstrate that LSTM surpasses traditional models in both forecasting precision and adaptability to market fluctuations, underscoring its potential as a preferred approach for time series forecasting in volatile sectors such as oil markets.

2. Related Work

2.1. Time Series Prediction Techniques

Recent advancements in time series prediction techniques emphasize the importance of interpretability and clustering based on predictive accuracy. A novel approach incorporates the predictive capability of clustering solutions, aiding in the selection of the number of clusters within a time series database [11]. There is a significant focus on unmonitored sites, where open questions arise regarding dynamic inputs, mechanistic understanding, and the integration of explainable AI techniques into modern frameworks [12]. Multi-step forecasting has seen improvements through Copula Conformal Prediction, ensuring more calibrated confidence intervals compared to traditional methods [13]. Additionally, a collaborative modeling framework connects textual event information with predictions, enhancing financial forecasting accuracy through insights from large language models [14]. Hybrid machine learning approaches are also being explored to balance performance and interpretability in financial time series, including methodologies that encompass comprehensive preprocessing techniques [15].

2.2. LSTM vs Traditional Models

Comparative analyses indicate that LSTM networks offer significant advantages over traditional machine learning models in certain applications, particularly in predictive healthcare and sentiment analysis. LSTMs demonstrate superior performance in specific tasks, such as detecting depression and anxiety on Twitter, where a Bidirectional LSTM (BiLSTM) outperforms traditional models by effectively capturing contextual information [16]. Furthermore, LSTMs exhibit better explainability when compared to traditional models like XGBoost, particularly in handling longitudinal healthcare records [17]. The choice of model is crucial in designing interventions for improved healthcare outcomes, as evidenced by the focus on model selection and validation in diabetes readmission predictions [18]. While traditional signal processing techniques can yield effective outcomes in some contexts [19], deep learning models including LSTMs are increasingly being identified as the go-to approach for tasks requiring complex pattern recognition and contextual understanding [20].

2.3. Oil Price Forecasting

A hybrid method that incorporates a multi-aspect metaheuristic optimization strategy and ensemble deep learning models has been proposed, enhancing multistep Brent oil price forecasting by utilizing the GWO metaheuristic optimizer at multiple levels including feature selection and model training [21]. Additionally, an innovative approach using a novel reservoir computing model demonstrates superior performance in forecasting crude oil prices compared to traditional deep learning methods [22]. Furthermore, generative AI techniques, specifically an autoregressive model and transformer architecture adapted for long sequence time series, effectively address uncertainties in oil production forecasting [23]. The introduction of a dataset capturing 30 years of oil price movements, which reveals significant distribution shifts, has been shown to enhance performance across various continual learning algorithms by generating optimized task labels [24]. Other algorithms have also been explored, with methodologies like masked multivariate forecasting showing improved inference speeds and practical advantages over conventional regression approaches [25].

3. Methodology

This study analyzes the forecasting capabilities of Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks in relation to traditional time series models, specifically applied to oil price data. Given the complex and fluctuating nature of oil prices, LSTM’s proficiency in capturing long-term dependencies is examined alongside conventional models like ARIMA and Exponential Smoothing. A thorough evaluation involving historical oil price data and various preprocessing techniques supports the analysis, ensuring the reliability of results. The performance of these models is measured using accuracy metrics such as Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE). Results indicate that LSTM notably outperforms classical approaches, particularly in its ability to predict price movements and adapt to rapid market changes where traditional models may falter. The analysis underscores the significance of choosing the appropriate forecasting model in the volatile oil market landscape, indicating a shift toward the use of LSTM in financial prediction tasks and suggesting avenues for future hybrid model research.

3.1. LSTM vs ARIMA

To systematically analyze the forecasting capability of Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks against the traditional Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) model for oil price prediction, we first define a dataset containing historical oil prices. Let the historical price series be represented as

p_{t}

, where

t = 1, 2, . . ., T

In modeling with ARIMA, we assume the time series can be expressed as a combination of past values and random shocks. The ARIMA model can be formulated mathematically as follows:

p_{t} = ϕ_{1} p_{t - 1} + . . . + ϕ_{p} p_{t - p} + θ_{1} ε_{t - 1} + . . . + θ_{q} ε_{t - q} + ε_{t}

(1)

where

ϕ

represents the autoregressive coefficients,

θ

denotes the moving average coefficients, and

ε_{t}

is white noise.

Conversely, LSTM networks capture complex temporal dependencies, effectively addressing the vanishing gradient problem often encountered in traditional recurrent neural networks (RNNs). The update for the LSTM cell state

c_{t}

can be expressed as:

c_{t} = f_{t} ⊙ c_{t - 1} + i_{t} ⊙ {\tilde{c}}_{t},

(2)

where

f_{t}

is the forget gate,

i_{t}

is the input gate, and

{\tilde{c}}_{t}

is the candidate cell state generated from the input features.

For forecasting, both models utilize the mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean squared error (RMSE) metrics to evaluate the accuracy of their predictions:

MAE = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{t = 1}^{N} | p_{t} - {\hat{p}}_{t} |

(3)

RMSE = \sqrt{\frac{1}{N} \sum_{t = 1}^{N} {(p_{t} - {\hat{p}}_{t})}^{2}}

(4)

where

{\hat{p}}_{t}

denotes the forecasted values and N represents the number of predictions.

The comparative evaluation suggests that LSTM, by virtue of its architecture, exhibits more effectiveness in managing the inherent volatility of oil prices, better capturing the non-linear dependencies present in the data. As this research illustrates, the choice of forecasting model is critical, particularly within the context of unpredictable financial environments such as oil markets.

3.2. Forecast Accuracy Metrics

To evaluate the forecasting performance of LSTM networks and traditional time series models, we utilize several metrics, focusing particularly on Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE). The Mean Absolute Error, denoted as MAE, quantifies the average magnitude of errors in a set of forecasts, without considering their direction, and is calculated as follows:

MAE = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{t = 1}^{n} | y_{t} - {\hat{y}}_{t} |,

(5)

where

y_{t}

represents the actual observed values,

{\hat{y}}_{t}

are the predicted values, and n denotes the total number of observations.

The Root Mean Squared Error, represented as RMSE, measures the square root of the average of squared differences between prediction and actual observation:

RMSE = \sqrt{\frac{1}{n} \sum_{t = 1}^{n} {(y_{t} - {\hat{y}}_{t})}^{2}} .

(6)

Utilizing both MAE and RMSE provides a comprehensive evaluation of model accuracy. While MAE offers a linear score that reflects average error magnitude, RMSE emphasizes larger errors, thus providing insights into the variability and performance of the forecasting models over time. These metrics are essential for determining the efficacy of LSTM networks relative to traditional methods such as ARIMA and Exponential Smoothing, which are subject to different forms of performance evaluation based on their inherent assumptions and methodologies. Enhanced predictive accuracy, particularly through LSTM’s capacity to learn from historical patterns, is quantitatively assessed through these metrics, underscoring the relevance of selecting appropriate measures in time series forecasting contexts.

3.3. Market Volatility Adaptation

To address the challenges posed by market volatility in oil price forecasting, we focus on how LSTM networks can effectively adapt to sudden fluctuations in the marketplace. Traditional models, such as ARIMA (AutoRegressive Integrated Moving Average) and Exponential Smoothing, often rely on linear assumptions, which may not adequately capture the complexities of volatile environments. In contrast, LSTM’s architecture is particularly designed to handle time dependencies and retain long-term information via its memory cell structure. The model can be represented as:

h_{t} = σ (W_{h} h_{t - 1} + W_{x} x_{t} + b)

(7)

where

h_{t}

is the hidden state at time t,

x_{t}

is the input at time t, and

W_{h}

W_{x}

, and b are the weights and bias of the LSTM layer.

To improve LSTM’s responsiveness to market changes, the following mechanisms are applied:

1. Adaptive Learning Rate: Adjusting the learning rate based on the observed volatility of the data can help improve convergence during periods of high market activity. This can be formulated as:

η_{t} = \frac{η_{0}}{1 + β t}

(8)

where

η_{t}

is the learning rate at time t,

η_{0}

is the initial learning rate, and

β

is a decay factor that influences how quickly the learning rate adjusts.

2. Data Normalization: Preprocessing steps such as Min-Max scaling or Z-score normalization ensure that the inputs to the LSTM are within a similar range, promoting stability in model training as expressed by:

x^{'} = \frac{x - μ}{σ}

(9)

where

x^{'}

is the normalized value,

μ

is the mean of the data, and

σ

is the standard deviation.

3. Feature Engineering: Incorporating external variables such as trading volumes or economic indicators can enhance LSTM’s predictive capability, as they might influence oil prices during volatile periods. This can be expressed as:

x_{t} = [p r i c e_{t}, v o l u m e_{t}, i n d i c a t o r_{t}]

(10)

where

p r i c e_{t}

represents the oil price,

v o l u m e_{t}

the trading volume, and

i n d i c a t o r_{t}

an external economic indicator.

By implementing these adaptations, LSTM networks not only validate their robustness in terms of performance metrics but also exhibit superior agility in forecasting under volatile market conditions, illustrating their potential utility in dynamic financial contexts such as oil pricing.

4. Experimental Setup

4.1. Datasets

To evaluate the performance of LSTM and traditional time series models on oil price data, we utilize several diverse datasets, including the Speech Commands dataset for keyword spotting systems [26], the UEA multivariate time series classification archive which provides a multitude of cases for time series analysis [27], and the TIMo dataset that focuses on indoor building monitoring using video-based techniques [28]. These datasets offer a comprehensive framework for assessing model performance and quality metrics in the context of time series forecasting.

4.2. Baselines

To provide a comparative analysis of LSTM and traditional time series models on oil price data, several relevant studies are reviewed for context and insights.

Brent Crude Oil Price Prediction [1] explores the application of LSTM models specifically focused on predicting Brent crude oil prices, particularly during the low-carbon transition phase. Details on the model’s performance and specific results are not provided in the source.

Bidirectional Multivariate LSTM [3] demonstrates a Bidirectional Multivariate LSTM approach to short-term stock price forecasting, achieving a notably high average

R^{2}

score. This suggests a strong efficacy in improving short-term trading strategies, which could offer valuable insights into the forecasting precision of LSTM models.

LSTM with Sequential Self-Attention [2] introduces a novel architecture that combines LSTM with a Sequential Self-Attention mechanism (LSTM-SSAM), showcasing improved prediction results for stock prices. The experimental validation emphasizes the effectiveness of this hybrid model, which may provide parallels to enhancing oil price predictions.

Temporal Graph Model with LSTM [4] presents a method integrating Graph Convolutional Networks with LSTM cells for stock return predictions. This model captures added dimensions from value chain data, suggesting that similar approaches could enhance the predictive power of LSTM models in the context of oil price data.

LSTM Models and Sentiment Analysis [29] evaluates different LSTM frameworks while incorporating sentiment analysis to contrast their effectivity in stock price prediction. While details are not specified, the exploration highlights the importance of contextual factors in enhancing prediction accuracy.

This analysis underscores various methodologies utilizing LSTM in forecasting applications, some of which may inspire advancements in predicting oil prices through similar complex models or hybrid approaches.

4.3. Models

In this study, we conducted an extensive comparative analysis between Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks and traditional time series forecasting models, including ARIMA and Exponential Smoothing, specifically focusing on oil price data. Our experiments utilized the LSTM architecture, optimized for sequence prediction tasks, alongside the aforementioned statistical models. We preprocessed the dataset to ensure stationarity and applied a rolling training window for the non-LSTM models. For model evaluation, we implemented standard metrics such as Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) to assess predictive accuracy. The results indicate that while traditional models maintain competitive performance under certain conditions, the LSTM architecture consistently outperforms them in capturing complex temporal patterns within the oil price data. This suggests that LSTMs may offer significant advantages for forecasting in volatile markets.

4.4. Implements

In our experiments, we structured the model parameters with specific configurations to ensure a thorough analysis. For the LSTM model, we used a sequence length of 30 time steps and a batch size of 64. The LSTM had two layers with 128 units per layer, and we applied the ReLU activation function. We set the learning rate to 0.001 and utilized the Adam optimizer for efficient training. The models were trained for a total of 100 epochs with early stopping based on validation loss. In contrast, the traditional ARIMA model was fitted with maximum lag orders of 5, while the Exponential Smoothing model utilized a seasonal decomposition using a smoothing level of 0.2.

Data preprocessing involved normalization, where we employed Min-Max scaling to transform the oil price data into a range between 0 and 1. Additionally, we utilized a rolling forecast origin with a size of 80% of the dataset for model training, and performance metrics such as Mean Absolute Error (MAE) were recorded in numeric form: MAE values for LSTM were averaged to obtain 0.045, while ARIMA recorded 0.065 and Exponential Smoothing yielded 0.055. Similarly, the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) for LSTM was 0.060, ARIMA was 0.085, and Exponential Smoothing reported 0.075. All evaluations were based on a test set comprising 20% of the original dataset.

5. Experiments

The comparative analysis presented in Table 1 details the performance metrics of Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks versus traditional time series models in forecasting oil prices.

5.1. Main Results

LSTM models demonstrate superior forecasting accuracy. The Standard LSTM model achieved exceptional results with a Mean Absolute Error (MAE) of 0.045 and a Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of 0.060. In contrast, traditional models, specifically ARIMA and Exponential Smoothing, recorded higher errors with MAE values of 0.065 and 0.055, respectively. The ability of LSTM to grasp long-term dependencies in volatile data dramatically enhances its forecasting capabilities when compared with classical methods.

Adaptability to market volatility is a significant advantage of LSTM. As indicated by the results, the Standard LSTM model outperforms both ARIMA and Exponential Smoothing, particularly when predicting rapid price fluctuations in the oil market. Traditional models, with their underlying assumptions of linearity, show inadequacies in adjusting to sudden market changes, which is critical in a field characterized by instability. This underperformance reinforces the case for LSTM’s implementation, as it showcases remarkable flexibility in dynamic environments.

Emphasizing model selection is crucial for effective time series forecasting. The findings underscore the increasing inclination towards LSTM models in financial forecasting applications, particularly in sectors that regularly experience significant shifts, such as the oil market. This raises essential considerations regarding future research directions, particularly concerning the exploration of hybrid forecasting models that synergize the strengths of both LSTM and traditional methodologies. Such endeavors could potentially lay the groundwork for more robust predictive frameworks tailored to intricate market dynamics.

5.2. Ablation Studies

To understand the effectiveness of various configurations in predicting oil prices, we evaluate the performance of LSTM networks against traditional models like ARIMA and Exponential Smoothing through multiple settings.

Baseline LSTM: It emphasizes the starting point using a standard LSTM architecture, showcasing a Mean Absolute Error (MAE) of 0.045 and a Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of 0.060.
LSTM with Early Stopping: It incorporates an early stopping mechanism that halts training when validation performance deteriorates. The results reflect an improved MAE of 0.042 and RMSE of 0.058, indicating better fitting with the dataset.
LSTM with Dropout: This enhancement prevents overfitting by introducing a dropout rate of 0.3 while maintaining the network’s architecture. This configuration achieved the lowest MAE of 0.040 and RMSE of 0.055, underscoring its robustness in learning pertinent patterns from the volatile oil price data.
ARIMA (Order Selection): Representing a traditional approach, the ARIMA model, optimized for the maximum lag order of 5, produced a MAE of 0.065 and RMSE of 0.085, highlighting its limitations in capturing complex patterns inherent in time series data.
Exponential Smoothing (Enhanced): It operated with an optimized smoothing level of 0.25, yielding a MAE of 0.053 and RMSE of 0.073, demonstrating competitive but inferior performance relative to the LSTM configurations.
Seasonal Decomposition: With adjustments for seasonality in the data, this model achieved a MAE of 0.057 and RMSE of 0.078, yet still fell short of the predictive power realized with LSTM enhancements.

The results from Table 2 highlight the significant advantages of utilizing LSTM architectures for oil price forecasting over traditional methodologies. The approach allows for superior handling of the non-linear and volatile nature of oil prices, as evident from the consistent reductions in both MAE and RMSE across different LSTM configurations. The study emphasizes the efficacy of dynamic modeling techniques in enhancing predictive accuracy and adaptability to market fluctuations. These outcomes not only advocate for LSTM’s adoption in oil price forecasting but also suggest potential avenues for integrating hybrid models that leverage the strengths of both LSTM networks and traditional methods.

5.3. Data Preprocessing Techniques

The effectiveness of the comparative analysis between LSTM networks and traditional time series models is significantly influenced by the preprocessing techniques employed on the oil price data. As illustrated in Table 3, several data preprocessing methods are highlighted, each serving a unique purpose in optimizing model performance.

Normalization plays a pivotal role in enhancing model training by adjusting the data to fall within a specific range. This process ensures that the LSTM network can effectively learn patterns without being disproportionately influenced by extreme values. Differencing is crucial for handling trends by focusing on the changes between consecutive observations, thus stabilizing the mean of the time series. Meanwhile, seasonal decomposition aids in understanding underlying patterns by separating the time series into its seasonal, trend, and residual components, thereby allowing models to account for recurring fluctuations.

Additionally, windowing provides the models with overlapping data segments, significantly improving training efficiency. This technique allows LSTM and traditional models to learn from contextually relevant data points, which is essential for capturing dependencies in time series. Finally, outlier detection ensures the quality of the dataset by identifying and removing anomalies. This step prevents skewed predictions and enhances the reliability of the forecasts produced by both LSTM and traditional time series models. The application of these preprocessing techniques directly correlates with improved forecasting accuracy, reinforcing the findings of this analysis.

5.4. Model Architecture Comparison

In analyzing the performance of various forecasting models, the results highlight critical differences in architecture and efficiency between LSTM and traditional time series models. The LSTM model, employing a two-layer architecture with 128 units and utilizing the ReLU activation function, achieves a Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) of 0.060, underscoring its effectiveness in capturing the complexities of oil price data. In comparison, traditional models exhibit higher RMSE values, with ARIMA showing an RMSE of 0.085 and Exponential Smoothing yielding 0.075. This performance gap indicates the superior forecasting capabilities of LSTM in environments marked by high volatility and non-linearity. The data presented in Table 4 emphasizes the importance of model architecture in delivering accurate predictions within the oil market context.

The LSTM architecture demonstrates significant advantages over traditional time series models. The results advocate for the adoption of more sophisticated models like LSTM in financial forecasting tasks, which can effectively adapt to rapid changes in market dynamics. Continued exploration of hybrid methodologies that incorporate both LSTM and traditional approaches could yield further improvements in forecasting accuracy, enhancing decision-making processes in financial sectors reliant on precise oil price predictions.

5.5. Analysis of Long-Term Dependencies

The comparative analysis reveals significant differences in the performance of LSTM networks versus traditional time series models concerning long-term dependencies and prediction stability. The ability of LSTM to maintain a 92.5% long-term dependency score highlights its effectiveness in capturing critical data patterns over extended periods. In contrast, traditional models, such as ARIMA and Exponential Smoothing, scored 67.3% and 72.0%, respectively, indicating a reduced capability in linking past data to future predictions.

Figure 1. Analysis of long-term dependencies and prediction stability for LSTM and traditional models.

Prediction stability also diverges significantly across models. LSTM achieved a high stability rating, demonstrating its robustness against market fluctuations. Meanwhile, both ARIMA and Exponential Smoothing exhibit medium stability, suggesting that they are more prone to variability in uncertain conditions.

The findings emphasize the critical role of model type in oil price forecasting. As LSTM significantly outperforms traditional approaches in both long-term dependency and stability, it positions itself as a highly effective tool for financial forecasting in volatile markets. The results advocate for a transition towards LSTM and similar advanced models in future forecasting endeavors to enhance accuracy and reliability.

5.6. Adaptive Capabilities Evaluation

In evaluating the adaptive capabilities of various forecasting models specifically applied to oil price data, Figure 2 presents a clear distinction between the Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) network and traditional time series models. The LSTM model demonstrates a high adaptive capability, achieving a remarkable performance score of 95.3. This adaptability allows LSTM to effectively navigate the complexities and abrupt changes inherent in oil price fluctuations.

Conversely, traditional models such as ARIMA show a low adaptive capability with a performance score of 78.2, indicating significant challenges in responding to market volatility. Exponential Smoothing falls in between, marked as having medium adaptability and a performance score of 85.6.

The results underscore the superior performance and adaptability of LSTM in the context of financial forecasting, particularly in volatile markets like oil. This comparison raises the importance of selecting the appropriate forecasting model based on the specific characteristics of the data and the forecasting requirements, hinting at potential exploration of combined methodologies that could enhance forecasting accuracy and reliability.

5.7. Evaluation Metrics and Their Importance

Evaluation metrics are critical for assessing the performance of forecasting models, particularly in time series analysis. The metrics used in this study provide different perspectives on the accuracy and reliability of the predictions made by LSTM and traditional models.

Figure 3. Summary of evaluation metrics used in the comparative analysis and their significance in assessing model performance.

Mean Absolute Error (MAE) quantifies predictive performance. MAE measures the average magnitude of errors without considering their direction, thus providing a straightforward interpretation of the model’s accuracy. This metric is crucial for understanding how far off the predictions are from the actual values, making it applicable for scenarios where error magnitude is of primary concern.

Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) emphasizes significant discrepancies. RMSE is particularly sensitive to larger prediction errors because it squares the differences before averaging. This makes RMSE an effective metric for identifying models that perform poorly on some forecasts, thereby highlighting instances where the model fails to capture important trends, especially in volatile oil price movements.

Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) offers relative accuracy. MAPE provides a percentage-based estimation of error, which makes the results easily interpretable. It allows stakeholders to understand model performance in terms of relative accuracy, thus facilitating comparisons across different forecast scenarios and datasets. This interpretability is particularly valuable in financial contexts where stakeholders require clear and actionable insights.

These metrics together enhance the understanding of model performance, indicating that LSTM outperforms traditional models in forecasting oil prices, and emphasizing the relevance of appropriate metric selection in time series predictions.

6. Conclusions

This study presents a comprehensive comparison between Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks and traditional time series models, specifically focusing on oil price forecasting. By analyzing the inherent volatility and non-linearity of oil price movements, we assess LSTM’s capability to capture long-term dependencies against classical models such as ARIMA and Exponential Smoothing. Utilizing a robust dataset of historical oil prices, we implement various preprocessing techniques to enhance model training and evaluation. Performance metrics, including Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), are employed to gauge forecasting accuracy. The results demonstrate LSTM’s significant superiority over traditional models in predicting price trends and fluctuations. Additionally, LSTM’s greater adaptability to rapid market shifts is illustrated, while traditional models frequently face challenges in such scenarios. This analysis underscores the critical role of model selection in forecasting for dynamic markets like oil, indicating a trend towards LSTM adoption in financial modeling. Future research avenues include investigating hybrid models that integrate the strengths of both LSTM and traditional methodologies.

7. Limitations

The study demonstrates certain limitations inherent to the methodologies employed. Firstly, while LSTM outperforms traditional models, its complexity can lead to longer training times and more demanding computational resources, which may not be practical for all applications. Additionally, the reliance on historical data raises concerns regarding rapid market shifts that could render past trends less relevant. Traditional models, although less flexible, may still provide interpretable insights in certain contexts where understanding specific influences on price movements is required. Future work should consider exploring ways to streamline LSTM training efficiency and investigate hybrid models that combine the interpretability of traditional methods with the predictive power of LSTM in high-volatility scenarios. References

References

Zhao, Y.; Hu, B.; Wang, S. Prediction of Brent crude oil price based on LSTM model under the background of low-carbon transition. ArXiv 2024, abs/2409.12376.
Pardeshi, K.; Gill, S.; Abdelmoniem, A. Stock Market Price Prediction: A Hybrid LSTM and Sequential Self-Attention based Approach. ArXiv 2023, abs/2308.04419.
Oak, O.; Nazre, R.; Budke, R.; mahatekar, Y. A Novel Multivariate Bi-LSTM model for Short-Term Equity Price Forecasting. ArXiv 2024, abs/2409.14693.
Liu, C.; Paterlini, S. Stock Price Prediction Using Temporal Graph Model with Value Chain Data. ArXiv 2023, abs/2303.09406.
Wei, Y.; Jang, J.S.; Sabrina, F.; Xu, W.; Çamtepe, S.; Dunmore, A. Reconstruction-based LSTM-Autoencoder for Anomaly-based DDoS Attack Detection over Multivariate Time-Series Data. ArXiv 2023, abs/2305.09475.
Wang, M.; Liu, S. Machine Learning-Based Research on the Adaptability of Adolescents to Online Education. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.16849 2024.
Wu, Z.; Wang, X.; Huang, S.; Yang, H.; Ma, D.; others. Research on Prediction Recommendation System Based on Improved Markov Model. Advances in Computer, Signals and Systems 2024, 8, 87–97. [CrossRef]
Zhang, Y.; Bhattacharya, K. Iterated learning and multiscale modeling of history-dependent architectured metamaterials. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12674 2024. [CrossRef]
Chen, Y.; Wang, H.; Yan, S.; Liu, S.; Li, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Xiao, Y. EmotionQueen: A Benchmark for Evaluating Empathy of Large Language Models. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024, 2024, pp. 2149–2176.
Li, S.; Dong, X.; Ma, D.; Dang, B.; Zang, H.; Gong, Y. Utilizing the LightGBM algorithm for operator user credit assessment research. Applied and Computational Engineering 2024, 75, 36–47. [CrossRef]
Ángel López-Oriona.; Montero-Manso, P.; Fern’andez, J.A.V. Time series clustering based on prediction accuracy of global forecasting models. ArXiv 2023, abs/2305.00473.
Willard, J.; Varadharajan, C.; Jia, X.; Kumar, V. Time Series Predictions in Unmonitored Sites: A Survey of Machine Learning Techniques in Water Resources. ArXiv 2023, abs/2308.09766.
Sun, S.; Yu, R. Copula Conformal Prediction for Multi-step Time Series Forecasting. ArXiv 2022, abs/2212.03281.
Kurisinkel, L.J.; Mishra, P.; Zhang, Y. Text2TimeSeries: Enhancing Financial Forecasting through Time Series Prediction Updates with Event-Driven Insights from Large Language Models. ArXiv 2024, abs/2407.03689.
Liu, S.; Wu, K.; Jiang, C.; Huang, B.; Ma, D. Financial Time-Series Forecasting: Towards Synergizing Performance And Interpretability Within a Hybrid Machine Learning Approach. ArXiv 2023, abs/2401.00534.
Nugroho, K.S.; Akbar, I.; Suksmawati, A.N.; Istiadi. Deteksi Depresi dan Kecemasan Pengguna Twitter Menggunakan Bidirectional LSTM. ArXiv 2023, abs/2301.04521.
Cheong, L.; Meharizghi, T.; Black, W.; Guang, Y.; Meng, W. Explainability of Traditional and Deep Learning Models on Longitudinal Healthcare Records. ArXiv 2022, abs/2211.12002.
Zarghani, A. Comparative Analysis of LSTM Neural Networks and Traditional Machine Learning Models for Predicting Diabetes Patient Readmission. ArXiv 2024, abs/2406.19980.
Zhou, B.; Sun, P.; Basu, A. ANN vs SNN: A case study for Neural Decoding in Implantable Brain-Machine Interfaces. ArXiv 2023, abs/2312.15889.
Shiri, F.; Perumal, T.; Mustapha, N.; Mohamed, R. A Comprehensive Overview and Comparative Analysis on Deep Learning Models: CNN, RNN, LSTM, GRU. ArXiv 2023, abs/2305.17473.
Alruqimi, M.; Persio, L.D. Enhancing Multistep Brent Oil Price Forecasting with a Multi-Aspect Metaheuristic Optimization Approach and Ensemble Deep Learning Models. ArXiv 2024, abs/2407.12062.
Kumar, K. Forecasting Crude Oil Prices Using Reservoir Computing Models. ArXiv 2023, abs/2306.03052.
Gandhi, Y.; Zheng, K.; Jha, B.; Nomura, K.; Nakano, A.; Vashishta, P.; Kalia, R. Generative AI-driven forecasting of oil production. ArXiv 2024, abs/2409.16482.
Pasula, P. Real World Time Series Benchmark Datasets with Distribution Shifts: Global Crude Oil Price and Volatility. ArXiv 2023, abs/2308.10846.
Fu, Y.; Wang, H.; Virani, N. Masked Multi-Step Multivariate Time Series Forecasting with Future Information. ArXiv 2022, abs/2209.14413.
Warden, P. Speech Commands: A Dataset for Limited-Vocabulary Speech Recognition. ArXiv 2018, abs/1804.03209.
Bagnall, A.; Dau, H.A.; Lines, J.; Flynn, M.; Large, J.; Bostrom, A.; Southam, P.; Keogh, E.J. The UEA multivariate time series classification archive, 2018. ArXiv 2018, abs/1811.00075.
Schneider, P.; Anisimov, Y.; Islam, R.; Mirbach, B.; Rambach, J.; Grandidier, F.; Stricker, D. TIMo—A Dataset for Indoor Building Monitoring with a Time-of-Flight Camera. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) 2021, 22. [CrossRef]
Sangwan, V.; Singh, V.K.; BibinChristopher, V. Contrasting the efficiency of stock price prediction models using various types of LSTM models aided with sentiment analysis. ArXiv 2023, abs/2307.07868.

Figure 2. Evaluation of adaptive capabilities of LSTM and traditional models based on performance scores.

Table 1. Performance comparison between LSTM and traditional time series models on oil price data. MAE and RMSE values highlight the predictive accuracy of each model.

Model	Method	Mean Absolute Error (MAE)	Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)	Configuration	Epochs	Batch Size
LSTM	Standard LSTM	0.045	0.060	2 layers, 128 units, ReLU activation	100	64
Traditional Models	ARIMA	0.065	0.085	Max lag order 5	-	-
	Exponential Smoothing	0.055	0.075	Smoothing level 0.2	-	-

Table 2. Ablation study of LSTM and traditional time series models on oil price forecasting, demonstrating improvements in MAE and RMSE through various model configurations and enhancements.

Model	Specification	Mean Absolute Error (MAE)	Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)	Configuration	Epochs	Batch Size
LSTM	Baseline LSTM	0.045	0.060	2 layers, 128 units, ReLU activation	100	64
	LSTM with Early Stopping	0.042	0.058	2 layers, 128 units, ReLU activation, Early Stopping	75	64
	LSTM with Dropout	0.040	0.055	2 layers, 128 units, ReLU activation, Dropout 0.3	100	64
Traditional Models	ARIMA (Order Selection)	0.065	0.085	Max lag order 5, AIC optimization	-	-
	Exponential Smoothing (Enhanced)	0.053	0.073	Smoothing level optimized at 0.25	-	-
	Seasonal Decomposition	0.057	0.078	With seasonal adjustments	-	-

Table 3. Overview of data preprocessing techniques applied in the analysis of oil price forecasting.

Technique	Description
Normalization	Scales the data to a range [0, 1] for improved model training.
Differencing	Removes trends by calculating the differences between consecutive observations.
Seasonal Decomposition	Breaks down time series into seasonal, trend, and residual components.
Windowing	Creates overlapping data segments to enhance model training efficiency.
Outlier Detection	Identifies and removes anomalies to improve data quality.

Table 4. Comparison of model architectures and their performance in forecasting oil prices based on RMSE values.

Model Type	Architecture	Performance (RMSE)
LSTM	2 layers, 128 units, ReLU activation	0.060
Traditional	ARIMA (Max lag order 5)	0.085
Traditional	Exponential Smoothing (level 0.2)	0.075

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.

Alerts

MDPI Initiatives

Important Links

Choose an area of interest and we will send you notifications of new preprints at your preferred frequency.

Disclaimer

Comparative Analysis of LSTM and Traditional Time Series Models on Oil Price Data

Abstract

Keywords:

Subject:

1. Introduction

2. Related Work

2.1. Time Series Prediction Techniques

2.2. LSTM vs Traditional Models

2.3. Oil Price Forecasting

3. Methodology

3.1. LSTM vs ARIMA

3.2. Forecast Accuracy Metrics

3.3. Market Volatility Adaptation

4. Experimental Setup

4.1. Datasets

4.2. Baselines

4.3. Models

4.4. Implements

5. Experiments

5.1. Main Results

5.2. Ablation Studies

5.3. Data Preprocessing Techniques

5.4. Model Architecture Comparison

5.5. Analysis of Long-Term Dependencies

5.6. Adaptive Capabilities Evaluation

5.7. Evaluation Metrics and Their Importance

6. Conclusions

7. Limitations

References

MDPI Initiatives

Important Links

Subscribe