<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<doi_batch version="5.3.1" xmlns="http://www.crossref.org/schema/5.3.1" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:jats="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/JATS1" xmlns:ai="http://www.crossref.org/AccessIndicators.xsd" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.crossref.org/schema/5.3.1 http://www.crossref.org/schema/deposit/crossref5.3.1.xsd">
 <head>
  <doi_batch_id>aspg-3-1870-1791942832</doi_batch_id>
  <timestamp>20261014015352</timestamp>
  <depositor>
   <depositor_name>American Scientific Publishing Group</depositor_name>
   <email_address>admin@americaspg.com</email_address>
  </depositor>
  <registrant>American Scientific Publishing Group</registrant>
 </head>
 <body>
  <journal>
   <journal_metadata language="en">
    <full_title>Fusion: Practice and Applications</full_title>
    <abbrev_title>FPA</abbrev_title>
    <issn media_type="print">2770-0070</issn>
    <issn media_type="electronic">2692-4048</issn>
   </journal_metadata>
   <journal_issue>
    <publication_date media_type="online">
     <year>2023</year>
    </publication_date>
    <journal_volume>
     <volume>12</volume>
    </journal_volume>
    <issue>1</issue>
   </journal_issue>
   <journal_article publication_type="full_text">
    <titles>
     <title>Machine Learning Fusion and Data Analytics Models for Demand Forecasting in the Automotive Industry: A Comparative Study</title>
    </titles>
    <contributors>
     <person_name sequence="first" contributor_role="author">
      <given_name>Esraa</given_name>
      <surname>Kamal</surname>
      <affiliations>
       <institution>
        <institution_name>Decision Support Department, Faculty of Computers and Informatics Zagazig University, Zagazig, 44519, Egypt</institution_name>
       </institution>
      </affiliations>
     </person_name>
     <person_name sequence="additional" contributor_role="author">
      <given_name>Amal F.</given_name>
      <surname>Abdel-Gawad</surname>
      <affiliations>
       <institution>
        <institution_name>Decision Support Department, Faculty of Computers and Informatics Zagazig University, Zagazig, 44519, Egypt</institution_name>
       </institution>
      </affiliations>
     </person_name>
     <person_name sequence="additional" contributor_role="author">
      <given_name>Basem</given_name>
      <surname>Ibraheem</surname>
      <affiliations>
       <institution>
        <institution_name>Computer and Systems Department, Electronics Research Institute ,Giza , Egypt</institution_name>
       </institution>
      </affiliations>
     </person_name>
     <person_name sequence="additional" contributor_role="author">
      <given_name>Shereen</given_name>
      <surname>Zaki</surname>
      <affiliations>
       <institution>
        <institution_name>Decision Support Department, Faculty of Computers and Informatics Zagazig University, Zagazig, 44519, Egypt</institution_name>
       </institution>
      </affiliations>
     </person_name>
    </contributors>
    <jats:abstract>
     <jats:p>Demand forecasting is a crucial aspect of managing the supply chain, as it helps companies optimize inventory levels and minimize expenses related to inventory shortages. In recent years, machine learning (ML) algorithms have gained popularity for demand forecasting, as they can handle large and complex datasets and provide accurate predictions. Precise demand prediction for car brands is vital for companies to minimize costs and prevent inventory shortages. The demand for distributing cars is a critical component of inventory management. However, estimating demand for new car sales is difficult due to its continuous nature. To address this challenge, a study was conducted to train, test, and compare the performance of five machine learning algorithms (Random Forest, Multiple Linear Regression, k-Nearest Neighbors, Extreme Gradient Boosting, and Support Vector Machine) using a benchmark dataset. Among all the experiments, the Support Vector Machine algorithm achieved the highest accuracy score of 71.42%. Moreover, Multiple Linear Regression performed well, with an accuracy score of 66.66%. On the other hand, the Extreme Gradient Boosting algorithm had the lowest accuracy score of 42.85%. All experiments used a train-test split of 75/25.</jats:p>
    </jats:abstract>
    <publication_date media_type="online">
     <year>2023</year>
    </publication_date>
    <pages>
     <first_page>24</first_page>
     <last_page>37</last_page>
    </pages>
    <publisher_item>
     <item_number item_number_type="article-number">1870</item_number>
    </publisher_item>
    <ai:program name="AccessIndicators">
     <ai:license_ref applies_to="vor">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ai:license_ref>
    </ai:program>
    <doi_data>
     <doi>10.54216/FPA.120102</doi>
     <resource>https://americaspg.com/journal/3/article/1870</resource>
     <collection property="text-mining">
      <item>
       <resource mime_type="application/pdf">https://americaspg.com/storage/41686795029.pdf</resource>
      </item>
     </collection>
    </doi_data>
   </journal_article>
  </journal>
 </body>
</doi_batch>
