Forecast and Analysis of Agricultural Products Logistics Demand Based on Informer Neural Network: Take the Central China Aera as An Example

doi:10.12133/j.smartag.SA202302001

Abstract

Abstract:

Ensuring the stability of agricultural products logistics is the key to ensuring people's livelihood. The forecast of agricultural products logistics demand is an important guarantee for rational planning of agricultural products logistics stability. However, the forecasting of agricultural products logistics demand is actually complicated, and it will be affected by various factors in the forecasting process. Therefore, in order to ensure the accuracy of forecasting the logistics demand of agricultural products, many influencing factors need to be considered. In this study, the logistics demand of agricultural products is taken as the research object, relevant indicators from 2017 to 2021 were selected as characteristic independent variables and a neural network model for forecasting the logistics demand of agricultural products was constructed by using Informer neural network. Taking Henan province, Hubei province and Hunan province in Central China as examples, the logistics demands of agricultural products in the three provinces were predicted. At the same time, long short-term memory network (LSTM) and Transformer neural network were used to forecast the demand of agricultural products logistics in three provinces of Central China, and the prediction results of the three models were compared. The results showed that the average percentage of prediction test error based on Informer neural network model constructed in this study was 3.39%, which was lower than that of LSTM and Transformer neural network models of 4.43% and 4.35%. The predicted value of Informer neural network model for three provinces was close to the actual value. The predicted value of Henan province in 2021 was 4185.33, the actual value was 4048.10, and the error was 3.389%. The predicted value of Hubei province in 2021 was 2503.64, the actual value was 2421.78, and the error was 3.380%. The predicted value of Hunan province in 2021 was 2933.31, the actual value was 2836.86, and the error was 3.340%. Therefore, it showed that the model can accurately predict the demand of agricultural products logistics in three provinces of Central China, and can provide a basis for rational planning and policy making of agricultural products logistics. Finally, the model and parameters were used to predict the logistics demand of agricultural products in Henan, Hunan, and Hubei provinces in 2023, and the predicted value of Henan province in 2023 was 4217.13; Hubei province was 2521.47, and Hunan province was 2974.65, respectively. The predicted values for the three provinces in 2023 are higher than the predicted values in 2021. Therefore, based on the logistics and transportation supporting facilities in 2021, it is necessary to ensure logistics and transportation efficiency and strengthen logistics and transportation capacity, so as to meet the growing logistics demand in Central China.

Key words: agricultural products, demand forecast, Informer neural network, long short-term memory network (LSTM), Transformer, deep learning

CLC Number:

TP 393.01

ZUO Min, HU Tianyu, DONG Wei, ZHANG Kexin, ZHANG Qingchuan. Forecast and Analysis of Agricultural Products Logistics Demand Based on Informer Neural Network: Take the Central China Aera as An Example[J]. Smart Agriculture, 2023, 5(1): 34-43.

Figures/Tables 9

Table 1

Sample data sets of indicators affecting the logistics demand of agricultural products in three provinces of Central China

年份	省份	G1/亿元	G2/元	G3/元	G4/亿元	G5/亿元	G6/亿元	G7/千公顷	G8/万吨公里	G9/公斤	G10/万吨	G11/千公顷	G12/万吨	G13/万公里	G14/万公里	S/万吨	X/万	Y/千克
2017	河南	44824.9	20170	13730	4139.3	20940.3	19745.3	14732.53	6524.25	683.49	11271.39	16670.25	230114	0.54	26.78	3215.1	9829	327.1
	湖南	33828.1	23103	17160	2998.4	13459.8	17369.9	8321.97	3073.6	449.29	5432.21	10248.41	225551	0.47	23.97	2562.3	6633	386.3
	湖北	37235	23757	16938	3529	15713.9	17992.2	7956.14	2846.13	482.93	5374.29	9796.19	188107	0.42	26.95	2030.4	5904	343.9
2018	河南	49935.9	21964	15169	4311.1	22038.6	23586.2	14783.35	6648.91	693.9	11369.49	16776.68	259884	0.54	26.86	3231.4	9864	327.6
	湖南	36329.7	25241	18808	3084.2	13904.1	19341.4	8111.09	3022.90	439.41	5424.7	10095.08	229957	0.51	24.01	2483.5	6635	374.3
	湖北	42022	25815	19538	3548.2	17573.9	20899.9	7952.9	2839.47	480.49	5414.61	9807.57	204307	0.43	27.50	2015.3	5917	340.6
2019	河南	53717.8	23903	16332	4635.7	23035.6	26046.5	14713.98	6695.36	695.81	11447.8	16914.99	219024	0.65	26.98	3464.4	9901	349.9
	湖南	39894.1	27680	20479	3647.2	15401.7	20845.2	8122.79	2974.84	430.6	4730.02	10581.25	189740	0.56	24.06	2580.97	6640	388.7
	湖北	45429	28319	21567	3809.4	18723	22896.5	7815.89	2724.98	460.15	5338.46	10271.75	188133	0.52	28.9	2034.74	5927	343.3
2020	河南	54259.4	24810	16143	5354	22220.9	26684.5	14687.99	6825.8	688.02	11584.08	16737.73	219939	0.65	27.03	3777.58	9941	380
	湖南	41542.6	29380	20998	4240.7	15949.2	21352.7	8400.13	3015.12	453.91	4440.67	10409.77	200878	0.56	24.11	2700.53	6645	406.4
	湖北	43004.5	27881	19246	4133.2	15933.8	22937.6	7974.39	2727.43	467.35	5339.24	9753.15	160422	0.52	282.96	2205.51	5745	383.9
2021	河南	58887.4	26811	18391	5620.8	24331.6	28934.9	14705.13	6544.17	660.23	11282.39	16713.72	255551	0.65	27.16	4048.1	9883	409.6
	湖南	46063.1	31993	22798	4322.9	18126.1	23614.1	8504.26	3074.36	463.46	4701.37	10552.7	224465	0.56	24.19	2836.86	6622	428.4
	湖北	50012.9	30829	23846	4661.7	18952.9	26398.4	8109.24	2764.33	477.64	5589.54	9949.02	214762	0.52	29.69	2421.78	5830	415.4

Table 1

Fig.1

Fig.2

Table 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig.5

Table 3

Table 4

References 25

1	姚冠新, 杨妍, 徐静, 等. 新冠疫情背景下农产品物流需求预测——以兴化市为例[J]. 物流科技, 2021, 44(9): 91-95.
	YAO G X, YANG Y, XU J, et al. Forecasting of logistics demand for agricultural products under the background of COVID-19—A case study of Xinghua city[J]. Logistics sci-tech, 2021, 44(9): 91-95.
2	张继良. 基于组合模型的山东生鲜农产品物流需求预测[D]. 济南: 山东大学, 2021.
	ZHANG J L. Logistics demand forecast of fresh agricultural products in Shandong province based on combination model[D]. Jinan: Shandong University, 2021.
3	王晓平, 闫飞. 基于GA-BP模型的北京城镇农产品冷链物流需求预测[J]. 数学的实践与认识, 2019, 49(21): 17-27.
	WANG X P, YAN F. Prediction of cold chain logistics demand for agricultural products in Beijing based on GA-BP model[J]. Mathematics in practice and theory, 2019, 49(21): 17-27.
4	SHYLA M K, SHIVA K K, KUMAR D R. Image steganography using genetic algorithm for cover image selection and embedding[J]. Soft computing letters, 2021, 3: ID 100021.
5	皇甫红姣. 绵阳市生鲜农产品冷链物流需求预测研究[D]. 绵阳: 西南科技大学, 2021.
	HUANGFU H J. Research on cold chain logistics demand forecast of fresh agricultural products in Mianyang city[D]. Mianyang: Southwest University of Science and Technology, 2021.
6	刘文博. 辽宁省生鲜农产品冷链物流需求预测研究[J]. 全国流通经济, 2022(4): 11-13.
	LIU W B. Research on demand forecast of cold chain logistics of fresh agricultural products in Liaoning province[J]. China circulation economy, 2022(4): 11-13.
7	WANG M, LI X. Demand forecasting of agricultural cold chain logistics based on metabolic GM (1,1) model[J]. IOP conference series: Earth and environmental science, 2021, 831(1): ID 012018.
8	HUANG L, XIE G, ZHAO W, et al. Regional logistics demand forecasting: A BP neural network approach[J]. Complex & Intelligent Systems, 2021: 1-16.
9	徐晓燕, 杨慧敏, 吕修凯, 等. 基于山东省不同模型的物流需求预测比较研究[J]. 包装工程, 2022, 43(23): 207-215.
	XU X Y, YANG H M, LYU X K, et al. Comparative research on forecast of logistics demand in Shandong Province based on different models[J]. Packaging engineering, 2022, 43(23): 207-215.
10	VAN DER LAAN E, VAN DALEN J, ROHRMOSER M, et al. Demand forecasting and order planning for humanitarian logistics: An empirical assessment[J]. Journal of operations management, 2016, 45: 114-122.
11	LU B, PARK N. A study on model of regional logistics requirements prediction[J]. Journal of Korean navigation and port research, 2012, 36: 553-559.
12	BAISARIYEV M, BAKYTZHANULY A, SERIK Y, et al. Demand forecasting methods for spare parts logistics for aviation: A real-world implementation of the Bootstrap method[J]. Procedia manufacturing, 2021, 55: 500-506.
13	ZENG M L, LIU R M, GAO M, et al. Demand forecasting for rural E-commerce logistics: A gray prediction model based on weakening buffer operator[J]. 2022, 2022: ID 3395757.
14	ANSHUKA A, CHANDRA R, BUZACOTT A J V, et al. Spatio temporal hydrological extreme forecasting framework using LSTM deep learning model[J]. Stochastic environmental research and risk assessment, 2022, 36(10): 3467-3485.
15	LIU J J, YUAN X, ZENG J H, et al. Ensemble streamflow forecasting over a cascade reservoir catchment with integrated hydrometeorological modeling and machine learning[J]. Hydrology and earth system sciences, 2021, 26(2): 265-278.
16	XU C W, WANG Y Z, FU H, et al. Comprehensive analysis for long-term hydrological simulation by deep learning techniques and remote sensing[J]. Frontiers in earth science, 2022, 10: ID 875145.
17	DU S D, LI T R, YANG Y, et al. Deep air quality forecasting using hybrid deep learning framework[J/OL]. arXiv: , 2018.
18	JANARTHANAN R, PARTHEEBAN P, SOMASUNDARAM K, et al. A deep learning approach for prediction of air quality index in a metropolitan city[J]. Sustainable cities and society, 2021, 67: ID 102720.
19	PENG J H, CAO H L, ALI Z, et al. Intelligent reflecting surface-assisted interference mitigation with deep reinforcement learning for radio astronomy[J]. IEEE antennas and wireless propagation letters, 2022, 21(9): 1757-1761.
20	SEDAGHAT N, ROMANIELLO M, CARRICK J E, et al. Machines learn to infer stellar parameters just by looking at a large number of spectra[J]. Monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 2021, 501(4): 6026-6041.
21	LIU H L, LIN P, ZHENG W P, et al. A global eddy-resolving ocean forecast system in China-LICOM Forecast System (LFS)[J]. Journal of operational oceanography, 2021, 16(1): 15-27.
22	ZHU X M, ZU Z Q, REN S H, et al. Improvements in the regional South China Sea operational oceanography forecasting system (SCSOFSv2)[J]. Geoscientific model development, 2022, 15(3): 995-1015.
23	综合百科[EB/OL]. (2020-10-29)[2023-01-30]. .
24	ZHOU H Y, ZHANG S H, PENG J Q, et al. Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting[J/OL]. arXiv:2012.07436 [cs.LG], 2020.
25	宋勇, 蔡志平. 大数据环境下基于信息论的入侵检测数据归一化方法[J]. 武汉大学学报(理学版), 2018, 64(2): 121-126.
	SONG Y, CAI Z P. Normalized method of intrusion detection data based on information theory in big data environment[J]. Journal of Wuhan university (natural science edition), 2018, 64(2): 121-126.

环境类型	环境名称	参数
操作系统	Windows 10	64 bit
硬件信息	CPU	Intel（R） Core（TM） i5-8265U CPU @ 1.60 GHz （8 CPUs）~1.8 GHz
	GPU	Radeon 540X Series
	RAM	16 GB
软件工具	Python 3.7	Numpy 1.21.6
		Scikit_Learn 1.0.2
		Pandas 1.3.5
		Torch 1.12.1
		Matplotlib 3.5.3

折叠数量	训练错误		测试错误
折叠数量	绝对误差	误差百分比/%	绝对误差	误差百分比/%
Informer 1倍	77.21	4.61	85.96	5.17
Informer 2倍	21.49	2.17	31.19	2.34
Informer 3倍	20.87	2.23	33.47	2.53
Informer 4倍	32.94	3.54	37.26	3.59
Informer 5倍	30.37	3.43	36.61	3.36
Informer平均值	36.58	3.07	44.89	3.39
LSTM 1倍	85.37	6.31	81.96	5.97
LSTM 2倍	31.23	4.21	38.23	3.64
LSTM 3倍	22.87	3.03	35.57	3.83
LSTM 4倍	34.74	3.84	28.31	2.89
LSTM 5倍	28.37	3.75	33.18	3.16
LSTM平均值	40.52	4.37	43.45	4.43
Transformer 1倍	81.07	4.61	82.15	5.17
Transformer 2倍	39.61	3.77	47.59	2.34
Transformer 3倍	27.53	2.03	38.26	3.47
Transformer 4倍	37.81	3.54	35.81	3.19
Transformer 5倍	33.41	3.43	31.73	3.06
Transformer平均值	39.61	3.07	47.11	4.35

序号	G1	G2	G3	G4	G5	G6	G7	G8	G9	G10	G11	G12	G13	G14	X	Y	绝对误差/%
1	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	3.39
2	×	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	3.52
3	√	×	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	3.58
4	√	√	×	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	3.81
5	√	√	√	×	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	3.77
6	√	√	√	√	×	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	3.86
7	√	√	√	√	√	×	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	3.46
8	√	√	√	√	√	√	×	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	4.07
9	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	×	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	3.44
10	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	×	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	3.47
11	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	×	√	√	√	√	√	√	3.62
12	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	×	√	√	√	√	√	3.53
13	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	×	√	√	√	√	3.74
14	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	×	√	√	√	3.48
15	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	×	√	√	3.51
16	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	×	√	3.43
17	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	×	3.52

[1]	LUO Youlu, PAN Yonghao, XIA Shunxing, TAO Youzhi. Lightweight Apple Leaf Disease Detection Algorithm Based on Improved YOLOv8 [J]. Smart Agriculture, 2024, 6(5): 128-138.
[2]	LIU Yi, ZHANG Yanjun. ReluformerN: Lightweight High-Low Frequency Enhanced for Hyperspectral Agricultural Lancover Classification [J]. Smart Agriculture, 2024, 6(5): 74-87.
[3]	NIAN Yue, ZHAO Kaixuan, JI Jiangtao. Cow Hoof Slippage Detecting Method Based on Enhanced DeepLabCut Model [J]. Smart Agriculture, 2024, 6(5): 153-163.
[4]	ZHANG Yanqi, ZHOU Shuo, ZHANG Ning, CHAI Xiujuan, SUN Tan. A Regional Farming Pig Counting System Based on Improved Instance Segmentation Algorithm [J]. Smart Agriculture, 2024, 6(4): 53-63.
[5]	XUE Bing, SUN Chuanheng, LIU Shuangyin, LUO Na, LI Jinhui. Price Game Model and Competitive Strategy of Agricultural Products Retail Market in the Context of Blockchain [J]. Smart Agriculture, 2024, 6(4): 160-173.
[6]	WENG Zhi, FAN Qi, ZHENG Zhiqiang. Automatic Measurement Method of Beef Cattle Body Size Based on Multimodal Image Information and Improved Instance Segmentation Network [J]. Smart Agriculture, 2024, 6(4): 64-75.
[7]	YANG Lin, LIU Shuangyin, XU Longqin, HE Min, SHENG Qingfeng, HAN Jiawei. Dynamic Prediction Method for Carbon Emissions of Cold Chain Distribution Vehicle under Multi-Source Information Fusion [J]. Smart Agriculture, 2024, 6(4): 138-148.
[8]	HOU Yiting, RAO Yuan, SONG He, NIE Zhenjun, WANG Tan, HE Haoxu. A Rapid Detection Method for Wheat Seedling Leaf Number in Complex Field Scenarios Based on Improved YOLOv8 [J]. Smart Agriculture, 2024, 6(4): 128-137.
[9]	WANG Yuxiao, SHI Yuanyuan, CHEN Zhaoda, WU Zhenfang, CAI Gengyuan, ZHANG Sumin, YIN Ling. Pig Back Transformer: Automatic 3D Pig Body Measurement Model [J]. Smart Agriculture, 2024, 6(4): 76-90.
[10]	LI Hao, DU Yuqiu, XIAO Xingzhu, CHEN Yanxi. Remote Sensing Identification Method of Cultivated Land at Hill County of Sichuan Basin Based on Deep Learning [J]. Smart Agriculture, 2024, 6(3): 34-45.
[11]	NIE Ganggang, RAO Honghui, LI Zefeng, LIU Muhua. Severity Grading Model for Camellia Oleifera Anthracnose Infection Based on Improved YOLACT [J]. Smart Agriculture, 2024, 6(3): 138-147.
[12]	ZHANG Jing, ZHAO Zexuan, ZHAO Yanru, BU Hongchao, WU Xingyu. Oilseed Rape Sclerotinia in Hyperspectral Images Segmentation Method Based on Bi-GRU and Spatial-Spectral Information Fusion [J]. Smart Agriculture, 2024, 6(2): 40-48.
[13]	PANG Chunhui, CHEN Peng, XIA Yi, ZHANG Jun, WANG Bing, ZOU Yan, CHEN Tianjiao, KANG Chenrui, LIANG Dong. HI-FPN: A Hierarchical Interactive Feature Pyramid Network for Accurate Wheat Lodging Localization Across Multiple Growth Periods [J]. Smart Agriculture, 2024, 6(2): 128-139.
[14]	ZHANG Yuyu, BING Shuying, JI Yuanhao, YAN Beibei, XU Jinpu. Grading Method of Fresh Cut Rose Flowers Based on Improved YOLOv8s [J]. Smart Agriculture, 2024, 6(2): 118-127.
[15]	ZHANG Jianhua, YAO Qiong, ZHOU Guomin, WU Wendi, XIU Xiaojie, WANG Jian. Intelligent Identification of Crop Agronomic Traits and Morphological Structure Phenotypes: A Review [J]. Smart Agriculture, 2024, 6(2): 14-27.