Sugarcane Yield and Quality Forecasting Models:
Adaptive ES vs. Deep Learning
Supawadee Srikamdee Sunisa Rimcharoen
Faculty of Informatics Faculty of Informatics
Burapha University Burapha University
Bangsaen, Chon buri, Thailand Bangsaen, Chon buri, Thailand
srikamdee@buu.ac.th rsunisa@buu.ac.th
ABSTRACT
This paper presents three forecasting models (based on a
backpropagation neural network (BPNN), (μ+λ) adaptive
evolution strategies (A-ES) [2], and a deep neural network
(DNN)) for predicting sugarcane quality levels (called
commercial cane sugar, CCS) and yield. The performance
analysis of the three models is also discussed. Sugarcane is an
important economic plant in many countries as the sugar industry
is also related to many other manufacturing sectors. However, the
sugarcane yield and quality levels have often been volatile leading
to poor resource management and economic loss. Our forecasting
models would further be developed to help sugar mills avoid such
situations.
We collected the data from sugarcane farmers residing in
Thailand’s 24 provinces (during 2010–2014). Comparatively
analyzing the accuracies of forecasting the sugarcane CCS and
yield obtained from the three models, we found that 1) the DNN-
based model is promising in some cases where its errors are less
than the other models, 2) A-ES- and DNN- based models have
comparable predicting performance on average, and 3) the DNN-
based model’s prediction accuracy is sensitive to its initial values
and the network structure (i.e, the train and testing error ranges
are 10.0-11.6 and 12.25-13.76, respectively, while varying
network structures and random seeds).
CCS Concepts
• Computing methodologies~Neural networks • Computing
methodologies~Genetic algorithms • Applied computing~
Forecasting
Keywords
Sugarcane yield; Commercial Cane Sugar; Deep learning; Neural
Network; Forecasting
1. INTRODUCTION
Sugarcane is one of the most important agricultural crops. It is
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that
copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights
for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be
honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or
republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior
specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from
Permissions@acm.org.
ISMSI’18, March 24–25, 2018, Phuket, Thailand.
© 2018 Association for Computing Machinery.
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-6412-6/18/03…$15.00
https://doi.org/10.1145/3206185.3206190
6
Nutthanon Leelathakul
Faculty of Informatics
Burapha University
Bangsaen, Chon buri, Thailand
nutthanon@buu.ac.th
cultivated in wide area of Thailand. Total cultivated area in 2016
is 10,988,489 rais (about 4 million acres) [1]. Sugarcane is a raw
material for the sugar industry. Most of the sugarcane productions
(about 90%) is feed to sugar mills during the harvest season
(between November to April in Thailand). To ensure enough
sugarcane supply, the mills usually have a contract with farmers
to deliver canes (called quota). However, the mills still have risks
of lacking the raw material supplies. The farmers could not
always guarantee their yield due to the uncertainties of climate,
different cultivated method of each farmer, etc. Therefore, the
accurate forecasting model will help the mills estimate yield and
quality of sugarcane so that they can plan and optimize a
production process. In this paper, we focus on the real mills’
problems: we collect real data from farmers and mills locating in
24 provinces of Thailand.
For the mills, there are two issues when the canes are delivered:
the cane yield and the quality. The quality is measured in term of
commercial cane sugar (CCS), which is defined as the total
recoverable sugar percent in sugarcane. In previous work,
Srikamdee [2] proposed the adaptive evolution strategies to only
forecast sugarcane yield. In this work, we further study and
construct a deep learning model to further forecast both the yield
and CCS. We also provide an analysis for understanding the
models derived by the (μ+λ) adaptive evolution strategies and by
the deep learning. The insight of the analysis would help design
and select the model for the prediction.
In the literatures, there exist two main categories of forecasting
models: mathematical and machine learning models. For the
mathematical examples, Hossain and Abdulla [3] used Auto-
Regressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) model to
forecast the sugarcane production in Bangladesh. Li and Qiu [4]
proposed a joint model of Markov chain and logistic regression to
forecast the sugarcane production in Guangxi province, China.
Saithanu et al. [5] employed Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) to
estimate sugarcane yield in northeast Thailand with RMSE of
12.7802. For the machine learning models, neural network-based
forecasting techniques have been popular. Obe and Shangodoyin
[6] applied the neural networks to forecast sugarcane yield in
Nigeria during 1920-2005. The prediction accuracy is 85.70%.
Bugate and Seresangtakul [7] also applied an artificial neural
network to forecast the sugarcane yield of the farms in northeast
Thailand during 2004-2009. They studied factors correlated with
the sugarcane yield and reported that the neural network model
with the structure 8:4:1 (input: hidden: output) made the smallest
error with the correlation coefficients of 0.99.
Deep neural network (DNN) has recently shown excellent
performances in solving various problems [8] such as speech
recognition, computer vision, object detection, etc. Many research
works have applied DNN to the forecasting tasks such as
predicting crude oil price [9], household electricity demand [10],
stock market [11], etc. To the best of our knowledge, this paper is
the first to employ DNN to forecast sugarcane yield and CCS.
The paper is organized as follows: material and methods are
described in Section 2. Experiments and results are presented in
Section 3. Discussion and analysis are provided in Section 4.
Finally, the conclusion is summarized in Section 5.
2. MATERIAL AND METHODS
2.1 Collecting Data
We collected data from the farmers (residing in 24 provinces of
Thailand), who supplied 8 – 14 tons of sugarcane to the mills
during the year 2010 - 2014. We preprocessed the data and
excluded incomplete and noisy data points from the raw data.
After the data cleansing, the numbers of the data points for the
year 2010 – 2014 are 314, 284, 288, 312 and 220, respectively.
The data consist of nine attributes as follows: 1) areas of new
sprout plantation (rais), 2) areas of first-ratoon plantation (rais), 3)
areas of second-ratoon plantation (rais), 4) areas of third-ratoon
plantation (rais), 5) quota agreements with the mills (tons), 6)
species (i.e. K84-200, LK11, K88-50, K90-77, K88-92, K88-50,
OoTong3, and OoTong1), 7) average rainfall of plantation
(millimeters), 8) number of rainy days throughout the year of each
plantation (days), and 9) maximum rainfall of each plantation
(millimeters). In this work, we feed these data attributes as an
input to the training processes to construct the models for
forecasting both of sugarcane yield and CCS.
2.2 Forecasting Models
This paper presents the models for forecasting the sugarcane yield
and CCS. We chose three methods based on the backpropagation
neural network (BPNN), the (μ+λ) adaptive evolution strategies
(A-ES), and the deep neural network (DNN).
2.2.1 BPNN
A neural network is a widely used model that is inspired by
human neural networks. In general, there are three kinds of layers
in neural networks, namely 1) input layer 2) hidden layers and 3)
output layer. The hidden layers transform input features to a
problem-specific feature space. In this paper, we train the neural
network to predict the sugarcane yield and CCS by fitting the
model to the training data. During the training process, the
algorithm tries to minimize error by updating weights of the
network based on a backpropagation technique. These steps of
updating weights are repeated until a given number of iterations is
reached.
In this paper, we construct the BPNN by using Weka version
3.6.12. Since the network structure directly affects to the
performance of the BPNN, we vary parameters including a
number of hidden nodes (from 5 to 20 nodes), a number of
iterations (varied in {1500, 2000, 2500, 3000}). We set learning
rate and momentum to 0.1. From the previous work [2], we found
that the set of parameters that provides the lowest training error
for sugarcane yield forecasting is 16 hidden nodes with 3000
iterations. In this work, the BPNN-based model for forecasting
CCS also uses the same parameters.
2.2.2 Adaptive ES (A-ES)
The adaptive evolution strategies (A-ES) was first proposed in
[12], into which a crossover technique has been added later by [2].
The A-ES is a combination of genetic algorithm (GA) and
7
evolution strategies (ES). We select the A-ES for evolving a
prediction function instead of using a traditional genetic
programming (GP) because the GP has a limitation on ephemeral
random constants [13]. The A-ES takes the advantages of both
GA and ES in terms of their capability in searching for a structure
of equation and adjusting coefficients. The A-ES simultaneously
evolves an equation form and its coefficients. It was proposed to
determine the equation for predicting sugarcane yielded in [2]. In
this work, we adopt A-ES to find a new mathematical equation for
forecasting CCS. We set A-ES’s parameter values similar to the
ones in [2], except the maximum number of the equation terms
that is set to 3 (which is obtained from the experiments where the
number of terms is varied from 2 to 15). The A-ES algorithm is
shown in the following steps:
1. Generate  parents, each of which contains 2 chromosomes
(i.e., coefficients and function forms).
2. Generate  new offspring using the following steps:
2.1 Update step-size
sigma = sigma  Exp(N(0, (sigma2))),
where (sigma2) denotes the learning rate, and N(x, y) the
normal distribution with the mean of x, and the variance of
(sigma2).
2.2 Mutate real-value coefficients
chromosome1 = chromosome1 + N(0, (sigma2))
2.3 Crossover and mutate the functions (chromosome2) as
shown in the following equations.
chromosome2 = mutate(crossover(chromosome2))
3. Evaluate chromosomes and select  most fit individuals to be
parents for the next generation.
4. Repeat step 2 and 3 until a stopping criterion is met.
2.2.3 Deep Neural Network (DNN)
Deep Neural Network (DNN) [14] is one of widely-accepted
machine learning techniques developed since 2006. It has been
applied to solve various problems in computer vision, speech
recognition, handwriting recognition, and information retrieval,
etc. Recently, research works on DNN are remarkably active. In
this paper, we attempt to apply the DNN to construct models for
forecasting sugarcane yield and CCS. We also study its behavior
related to network structures, initial weights, and training-data
overfitting.
DNN differs from normal ANN in that it has a larger number of
hidden layers. The increasing of the number of layers help DNN
cope with more complex problems and more efficient to solve
real-world problems. This paper varies DNN parameters to find
appropriate DNN structures of the sugarcane forecasting model.
Particularly, we vary a number of hidden layers from 2 to 5 layers
and a number of nodes in each layer in {32, 64, 128}. In all
experiments, every layer has equal number of nodes. Each
network structure is trained to determine the forecasting model.
The data of the ith year is trained to predict the yield of the (i+1)th
year. Each structure’s preliminary error (averaged over the years)
is shown in Figure 1 and the ones for forecasting CCS are shown
in Figure 2.
 Table 1. Training and testing MAPEs in sugarcane yield
prediction
Training Testing Training MAPE Testing MAPE
Data Data
BPNN A-ES DNN BPNN A-ES DNN

2010 2011 10.27 9.64 9.16 20.08 12.43 13.64

2011 2012 18.56 11.65 8.97 45.98 18.08 15.28

2012 2013 84.31 10.93 9.25 77.62 11.03 13.78

2013 2014 38.45 11.42 9.61 81.73 11.29 12.62

Figure 1. MAPE of the DNN-based yield forecasting models Avg. 37.90 10.91 9.25 56.35 13.21 13.83

In Figure 1, the horizontal axis shows network structures denoted

by xL-yN, where x is the number of layers and y is the number of
nodes in each layer. The vertical axis represents average mean
absolute percentage error (MAPE). The solid line shows the
average MAPEs of training data, and the dashed line shows the
average MAPEs of testing data.
From this preliminary experiment, we found that the structure
with the lowest MAPE for training data is the structure with 3
hidden layers and a number of node in each layer is 128 nodes. So,
in Section 3.1, we use this structure to be our yield forecasting
model. (In the real world situation, we have to be able to build
accurate forecasting models without future testing data. Therefore,
we choose the setting that yields the lowest error for the training
data rather than the one for the testing data.)
The graph in Figure 2 shows that the lowest MAPE for training
data is obtained by the DNN structure with 4 hidden layers, each
of which has 32 nodes. We use this structure to be our CCS
forecasting model in Section 3.2.
According to Table 1, the DNN-based model evidently
outperforms the BPNN-based, confirming that the deep model
with more hidden layers and more nodes is more efficient than the
one with one hidden layer. The DNN-based model also
outperforms the A-ES-based in the training process (about 2%).
However, most of its testing results are worse, and its average
testing MAPE is slightly higher than the A-ES-based model by
0.62%. The DNN-based model has better testing accuracy than
the A-ES-based does only when testing with the year 2012 data.
The results show that the DNN-based model tends to overfit the
training data, which do not cover all the testing data’s
characteristics.
3.2 CCS Forecasting
Table 2 shows the results of the CCS prediction. For the training
data, the BPNN algorithm produces the best results when
forecasting CCS in 2010. The DNN algorithm yields the best
results for 2011. The A-ES is best for both 2012 and 2013. On
average over all the years, the A-ES yields the minimum training
MAPE of 4.10. During the testing process, the DNN performs
best for predicting CCS in 2011 and 2013, while the BPNN and
the A-ES are best for 2012 and 2014, respectively. On average,
the DNN-based model has the lowest testing MAPE of 5.93.

Table 2. Performance comparison for CCS prediction

Training Testing Training MAPE Testing MAPE
Data Data
BPNN A-ES DNN BPNN A-ES DNN

2010 2011 3.97 4.04 4.11 8.62 4.58 4.07

Figure 2. MAPE of the DNN-based CCS forecasting models 2011 2012 3.64 3.49 3.48 5.50 5.60 6.09

3. Experiments 2012 2013 5.35 4.74 4.83 11.98 8.14 7.85

3.1 Sugarcane Yield Forecasting 2013 2014 4.14 4.13 4.21 5.98 5.64 5.71
In this experiments, we compare the three algorithms’ forecasting
accuracy. Table 1 shows the accuracies in terms of mean absolute Avg. 4.28 4.10 4.16 8.02 5.99 5.93
percentage error (MAPE). Note that BPNN and A-ES’s MAPE
are obtained from [2]. The accuracies of DNN are obtained from
the best training model after 50 runs. Although the DNN-based model is slightly better than the A-ES,
its models are described as a set of weights, while the A-ES-based
model provides the human-understandable prediction equations.
The prediction equations for the CCS are presented in Table 3.
The CCS-influent factors are cropping areas (i.e, Ratoon1,

8
Ratoon3, NewPlanted in the equations), maximum rainfall, the the best testing results for 2011, 2013 and 2014, while the DNN-
number of rainy days, quota and sugarcane varieties. based provides the best for year 2012. On average over the years,
the DNN-based model has the lowest testing MAPE.
Table 3. Equations obtained by the A-ES for CCS prediction
In summary, the DNN-based model generates both the lowest
Training Testing Equation training and testing errors when forecasting sugarcane yield. The
Data Data results in this section also show that if the DNN-based model is
initialized appropriately, it could outperform the others (as shown
2010 2011 11.8621 + 0.511844Ratoon1 / - in Table 4 where the average test MAPE is 11.94%). On the other
2.61096MaxRainfall - 1.27713TypeK88_92 hand, the model might be trained to overfit the training data, and
produce more MAPE than the other two models do (as shown in
2011 2012 12.3818 + 2.79451TypeK84_200 - Table 1 where the average test MAPE is 13.83%).
4.21822DaysOfRain / 16.9181MaxRainfall
Table 4. In yield prediction, MAPEs of the BPNN-based and
2012 2013 11.6497 + 0.275961TypeLK11 - 0.724346Ratoon3 of A-ES-based models (producing the lowest training error)
/ 4.7858Ratoon3 vs. MAPEs of the DNN-based model (yielding the lowest
testing error)
2013 2014 12.5836 + -3.16223TypeLK11 / 0.0515265Quota Training Testing Training MAPE Testing MAPE
/ 0.0336951NewPlanted Data Data
BPNN A-ES DNN BPNN A-ES DNN

4. Discussion 2010 2011 10.27 9.64 10.20 20.08 12.43 12.04

Based on the performance evaluation in Section 3, we found that
the DNN and the A-ES generally yield comparable results. The A- 2011 2012 18.56 11.65 10.82 45.98 18.08 11.90
ES’s average testing MAPE is slightly lower than the DNN’s
when forecasting the yield, while the DNN’s average testing 2012 2013 84.31 10.93 10.97 77.62 11.03 12.05
MAPE is slightly lower than the A-ES’s when forecasting CCS.
In this section, we further study the DNN-based model’s behavior, 2013 2014 38.45 11.42 9.98 81.73 11.29 11.75
by focusing on the performance of forecasting both yield and CCS,
in two aspects: 1) DNN’s highest testing accuracy and 2) DNN’s Avg. 37.90 10.91 10.49 56.35 13.21 11.94
average accuracy.
Table 5. In yield prediction, each model’s average MAPE
4.1 Sugarcane Yield Forecasting
Training Testing Training MAPE Testing MAPE
4.1.1 Analyzing the DNN-based model that yields the Data Data

lowest testing error BPNN A-ES DNN BPNN A-ES DNN

Table 4 shows the training/testing errors of the BPNN-based and

of A-ES-based models (each of which yields the lowest training 2010 2011 10.27 9.64 9.85 20.08 12.43 13.21
error) to be compared with the training/testing errors of the DNN-
2011 2012 18.56 11.65 10.43 45.98 18.08 13.38
based model (which yields the lowest testing error in our
experiments). 2012 2013 84.31 10.93 77.62 13.05
10.23 11.03
DNN’s MAPE depends on the values of parameters (e.g., initial
weights, number of layers, number of nodes etc.). As shown in the 2013 2014 38.45 11.42 10.38 81.73 11.29 13.16
table, the DNN-based model produces the best testing results for
2011 and 2012, while the A-ES-based model performs best for Avg. 37.90 10.91 10.22 56.35 13.21 13.20
2013 and 2014. DNN has both of the lowest average training and
testing MAPEs. After analyzing the parameter settings, we found
that the initial DNN weights could affect the model’s predictive 4.2 CCS Forecasting
accuracy. Only if the weights are properly initialized could DNN
outperform both BPNN and A-ES: the average MAPE of test 4.2.1 Analyzing the DNN-based model that yields the
decreases from 13.83% (shown in Table 1) to 11.94% (in Table lowest testing error
4). For the CCS prediction, when using the DNN-based model from
4.1.2 Analyzing each model’s average training and the run that produces the lowest testing error, the performance is
similar to the ones discussed in the previous section. The DNN-
testing errors based model’s error is relatively low if the weights are properly
Table 5 shows the training/testing errors of the BPNN-based and initialized. The DNN-based model with the lowest testing error
the A-ES-based models (each of which yields the lowest training outperforms the others in term of the testing errors for forecasting
error) to be compared with the training/testing errors of the DNN the CCS each year. However, the same DNN-based model does
(averaged over 50 runs). The A-ES-based model produces the best not yield the best training performance, implying that if the DNN-
training result for 2010, while the DNN-based generates the based model is not trained to overfit the training data, the
lowest average training errors for the other three years. On prediction accuracy for the testing data might be better. In this
average over the years, the DNN-based model also has the lowest experiment, the average MAPE from testing data decrease from
training MAPE. For the testing process, the A-ES-based produces 5.93% (as in Table 2) to 5.31% (as in Table 6).

9
 Table 6. In CCS prediction, MAPEs of the BPNN-based and 5. CONCLUSION
of A-ES-based models (producing the lowest training error) In this paper, we proposed the BPNN-, A-ES-, and DNN- based
vs. MAPEs of the DNN-based model (yielding the lowest models for forecasting sugarcane yield and quality levels (CCS).
testing error) The data were informed by sugarcane farmers residing in 24
Training Testing Training MAPE Testing MAPE
Thailand provinces during 2010–2014. The model's’ prediction
Data Data performances were then compared and analyzed. In our
BPNN A-ES DNN BPNN A-ES DNN experiments, we studied how DNN parameters would affect its
forecasting accuracy and whether it could outperform A-ES. We
2010 2011 3.97 4.04 4.32 8.62 4.58 3.66 found that the DNN-based model outperforms the others in
forecasting sugarcane yields. However, it is slightly worse than
2011 2012 3.64 3.49 3.72 5.50 5.60 5.47 the A-ES-based model when it comes to predict sugarcane CCS.
As DNN’s accuracy depends on the algorithm’s parameters, the
2012 2013 5.35 4.74 4.97 11.98 8.14 7.09 model’s produced by DNN sometimes performs relatively poorly.
Lastly, the DNN-based model tends to overfit the training data:
2013 2014 4.14 4.13 4.32 5.98 5.64 5.01 the one that yields the least training errors does not necessary
produces the best testing errors.
Avg. 4.28 4.10 4.33 8.02 5.99 5.31 In the future work, we plan to reduce the forecasting inaccuracies
for sugarcane yield by applying time-series analysis algorithms,
4.2.2 Analyzing each model’s average training and together with more useful information (e.g. pest outbreak, more
testing errors thorough and accurate weather information) obtained by widely-
deployed sensor networks. Moreover, the deep-learning
Similar to Table 5, Table 7 shows the training/testing errors of the parameters could be fine-tuned by applying evolutionary
BPNN-based and the A-ES-based models (each of which yields algorithms.
the lowest training error) to be compared with the training/testing
errors of the DNN (averaged over 50 runs). During the training 6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
process, the BPNN-based produces the best result for year 2010 This work was financially supported by the Research Grant of
and the A-ES-based produces the best results for the other three Burapha University through National Research Council of
years. For the testing process, the BPNN-based and the A-ES- Thailand (Grant no. 33/2560).
based produces the best results in year 2012 and 2014,
respectively, while the DNN-based produces the best result in 7. REFERENCES
year 2011 and 2013. [1] Sugarcane cultivated area report, Office of the Cane and
Sugar Board, Thailand, 2017.
Table 7. In CCS prediction, each model’s average MAPE [2] Srikamdee, S., Rimcharoen, S. and Leelathakul, N. 2016.
Training Testing Training MAPE Testing MAPE
Forecasting sugarcane yield using (mu+lambda) adaptive
Data Data evolution strategies. In: Park J., Pan Y., Yi G., Loia V. (eds)
BPNN A-ES DNN BPNN A-ES DNN Advances in Computer Science and Ubiquitous Computing.
CSA 2016, CUTE 2016, UCAWSN 2016. Lecture Notes in
2010 2011 3.97 4.04 4.17 8.62 4.58 4.18 Electrical Engineering. 421. Springer, Singapore.
[3] Hossain1, Md. M. and Abdulla, F. 2015. Forecasting the
2011 2012 3.64 3.49 3.56 5.50 5.60 6.22
sugarcane production in Bangladesh by ARIMA model. J.
2012 2013 5.35 4.74 4.88 11.98 8.14 8.00 Stat. Appl. Pro. 4, 2, 297-303.
[4] Li, D. and Qiu, M. 2012. The application of joint model for
2013 2014 4.14 4.13 4.24 5.98 5.64 5.70 sugarcane production forecast of Guangxi province.
Procedia Engineer. 31, 1083-1088.
Avg. 4.28 4.10 4.21 8.02 5.99 6.03
[5] Saithanu, K., Sittisorn, P. and Mekparyup, J. 2017.
On average over 4 years, the DNN-based model provides the best Estimation of sugar cane yield in the northeast of Thailand
forecasting results compared to the others for the yield prediction with MLR model. Burapha Science Journal. 22, 2, 197-202.
(as shown in Table 5). However, Table 7 shows that A-ES is the [6] Obe, O.O. and Shangodoyin, D.K. 2010. Artificial neural
best model for forecasting CCS. The reason may be that CCS has network based model for forecasting sugar cane production.
a narrow range of values (approximately between 10 - 13), so it is Journal of Computer Science. 6, 4, 439-445.
not difficult for the A-ES to find the fitting model. On the [7] Bugate, O. and Seresangtakul, P. 2013. Sugarcane production
contrary, possible values of the yields are quite diverse, it requires forecasting model of the northeastern by artificial neural
more complicated model to deal with. In this case, the deep network. KKU Sci. J. 41, 1, 213-225.
learning model is superior. Another advantage of the model
obtained by A-ES is that it could yield the mathematical equations, [8] Liu, W., Wang, Z., Liu, X., Zeng, N., Liu, Y. and Alsaadi, F.
which are easy for humans to interpret and understand their E. 2017. A survey of deep neural network architectures and
meaning, while the results of the DNN-based model are a set of their applications. Neurocomputing. 234, 11-26.
weights, which are less meaningful. [9] Zhao, Y., Li., J. and Yu, L. 2017. A deep learning ensemble
approach for crude oil price forecasting. Energ Econ. 66, 9-
16.

10
[10] Coelho, V. N., Coelho, I. M., Rios, E., Filho, A. S. T., Reis,
A. J. R., Coelho, B. N., Alves, A., Netto, G. G., Souza, M. J.
F. and Guimaraes, F. G. 2016. A hybrid deep learning
forecasting model using GPU disaggregated function
evaluations applied for household electricity demand
forecasting. Enrgy Proced. 103, 280-285.
[11] Chong, E., Han, C. and Park, F. C. 2017. Deep learning
networks for stock market analysis and prediction:
Methodology, data representations, and case studies. Expert
Syst Appl. 83, 187-205.
11
[12] Rimcharoen, S., Sutivong, D. and Chongstitvatana, P. 2005.
Curve fitting using adaptive evolution strategies for
forecasting the exchange rate. In Proceedings of the 2nd
ECTI Annual International Conference.
[13] Koza, J. R. 1992. Genetic Programming: On the
Programming of Conputers by Means of Natural Selection,"
MIT Press: Cambridge, USA.
[14] Schmidhuber, Jürgen. 2015. Deep learning in neural
networks: An overview. Neural networks. 61, 85-117.