Table 3 The simulation results... | Emerald Publishing

Table 3

The simulation results comparison of different models in Case 1

k	Original value	NGBM n = −1.5 p = 0.5	Nash NGBM n = −1.7 p = 0.54	Optimized nash NGBM n = −1.202 p = 0.103	Full NGBM n = −0.898 p = 0.250 m = 1 s = −0.998	FANGBM n = −0.3313 γ = 1.9588	SANDGMO $β_{4}$ = 0.000998 $ξ$ = 0.81801067 γ = 2.119156
	$x^{(0)} (k)$	${\hat{x}}^{(0)} (k)$	${\hat{x}}^{(0)} (k)$	${\hat{x}}^{(0)} (k)$	${\hat{x}}^{(0)} (k)$	${\hat{x}}^{(0)} (k)$	${\hat{x}}^{(0)} (k)$
1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
2	2	2.00	2.01	2	1.8556	2	2.0000
3	1.5	2.0682	2.07	1.9245	1.5205	1.5	1.5000
4	3	2.9138	2.99	2.4646	2.8954	2.7843	3.0000
MAPE(avg)%		13.62%	13.05%	15.38%	4.02%	2.3968%	0.0000%

k	Original value	NGBM n = −1.5p = 0.5	Nash NGBM n = −1.7p = 0.54	Optimized nash NGBM n = −1.202p = 0.103	Full NGBM n = −0.898p = 0.250m = 1s = −0.998	FANGBM n = −0.3313γ = 1.9588	SANDGMO $β_{4}$ = 0.000998 $ξ$ = 0.81801067γ = 2.119156
	$x^{(0)} (k)$	${\hat{x}}^{(0)} (k)$	${\hat{x}}^{(0)} (k)$	${\hat{x}}^{(0)} (k)$	${\hat{x}}^{(0)} (k)$	${\hat{x}}^{(0)} (k)$	${\hat{x}}^{(0)} (k)$
1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
2	2	2.00	2.01	2	1.8556	2	2.0000
3	1.5	2.0682	2.07	1.9245	1.5205	1.5	1.5000
4	3	2.9138	2.99	2.4646	2.8954	2.7843	3.0000
MAPE(avg)%		13.62%	13.05%	15.38%	4.02%	2.3968%	0.0000%

Source(s): Authors' own creation