Melola Discovery

← Melola Discovery

Open access Jurnal SINTA 3

PREDICTION INTERVALS IN MACHINE LEARNING: RESIDUAL BOOTSTRAP AND QUANTILE REGRESSION FOR CASH FLOW ANALYSIS

BAREKENG: Jurnal Ilmu Matematika dan Terapan · Vol. 19 No. 3 (2025) · pp. 1625–1636

DOI
10.30598/barekengvol19iss3pp1625-1636
ISSN
2615-3017, 1978-7227
Published
2025-07-01
Publisher
PATTIMURA UNIVERSITY
Language
eng
License
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0

Abstract

Time series forecasting often faces challenges in producing reliable predictions due to inherent uncertainty in dynamic systems. While point predictions are commonly used, they may not adequately capture this uncertainty, especially in financial systems where forecasting accuracy directly impacts decision-making. Prediction intervals offer a solution by providing a range of likely outcomes rather than single-point estimates. This study implements multivariate time series forecasting using gradient boosting algorithms (XGBoost, CatBoost, and LightGBM) to predict cash flow patterns in banking transactions, focusing on constructing reliable prediction intervals. Using transaction data from Bank Rakyat Indonesia (BRI), the research analyzes both office and e-channel transactions with different lag structures based on Granger Causality tests. Model performance was evaluated using RMSLE, MAE, and MAPE metrics, with RMSLE chosen as primary due to its ability to handle skewed distributions. LightGBM achieved best performance for office cash-in transactions (RMSLE: 0.2395), while CatBoost outperformed others for office cash-out (RMSLE: 0.2848), e-channel cash-in (RMSLE: 0.3946), and e-channel cash-out (RMSLE: 0.4221). For prediction intervals, two methods were compared: Residual Bootstrap with 500 samples and Quantile Regression. Residual Bootstrap generally produced coverage probabilities closer to the 80% level (i.e., 10–90% prediction interval), especially for office transactions, while maintaining narrower interval widths. In contrast, Quantile Regression tended to generate wider intervals and often overestimated uncertainty, resulting in overly high coverage in some cases. However, both methods showed clear limitations when applied to e-channel transactions, particularly for cash-in e-channel, where coverage probabilities fell below 50% due to high volatility and irregular transaction patterns. Unlike previous work focused only on point forecasts, this study offers insights into forecast uncertainty by evaluating how well each method quantifies, providing practical guidance for financial institutions aiming to improve risk management through interval-based forecasting.

Collaboration network of the authors

19 authors · 36 co-authorship links

Hover or tap a name to highlight its co-authors. Double-click to open the author's page.

  • IPB University
  • Bandung Islamic University
  • Affiliation unknown
  • Different organisations
  • Same organisation
  • Affiliation unknown
  • Thicker line = more joint articles · bigger circle = more articles
Show as table
Co-authorOrganisationJoint articles
Muhammad Nur AidiAffiliation unknown2
Anang KurniaAffiliation unknown2
Wa Ode Rona FreyaAffiliation unknown1
Kusman SadikAffiliation unknown1
Abdullah PannuAffiliation unknown1
Hari WijayantoAffiliation unknown1
Utami Dyah SyafitriAffiliation unknown1
Ratna Nur Mustika SanusiAffiliation unknown1
Asep SaefuddinIPB University1
Satria June AdwendiAffiliation unknown1
Khairil Anwar NotodiputroBandung Islamic University1
Andika Putri RatnasariAffiliation unknown1
Khalilah NurfadilahAffiliation unknown1
Khairil A. NotodiputroAffiliation unknown1
Assyifa Lala Pratiwi HamidAffiliation unknown1
Ade RiyawanAffiliation unknown1

Affiliations come from OpenAlex; journal OAI-PMH metadata carries none. Authors without an OpenAlex ID are matched by name, which can merge or split people.

Metadata source: OAI-PMH (metadata jurnal) https://ojs3.unpatti.ac.id/index.php/barekeng/oai, first harvested 5 Nov 2026, last seen 5 Nov 2026.
Original metadata (oai_dc)
<oai_dc:dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/  http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
	<dc:title xml:lang="en-US">PREDICTION INTERVALS IN MACHINE LEARNING: RESIDUAL BOOTSTRAP AND QUANTILE REGRESSION FOR CASH FLOW ANALYSIS</dc:title>
	<dc:creator>Safitri, Wa Ode Rahmalia</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator>Mochamad Afendi, Farit</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator>Susetyo, Budi</dc:creator>
	<dc:description xml:lang="en-US">Time series forecasting often faces challenges in producing reliable predictions due to inherent uncertainty in dynamic systems. While point predictions are commonly used, they may not adequately capture this uncertainty, especially in financial systems where forecasting accuracy directly impacts decision-making. Prediction intervals offer a solution by providing a range of likely outcomes rather than single-point estimates. This study implements multivariate time series forecasting using gradient boosting algorithms (XGBoost, CatBoost, and LightGBM) to predict cash flow patterns in banking transactions, focusing on constructing reliable prediction intervals. Using transaction data from Bank Rakyat Indonesia (BRI), the research analyzes both office and e-channel transactions with different lag structures based on Granger Causality tests. Model performance was evaluated using RMSLE, MAE, and MAPE metrics, with RMSLE chosen as primary due to its ability to handle skewed distributions. LightGBM achieved best performance for office cash-in transactions (RMSLE: 0.2395), while CatBoost outperformed others for office cash-out (RMSLE: 0.2848), e-channel cash-in (RMSLE: 0.3946), and e-channel cash-out (RMSLE: 0.4221). For prediction intervals, two methods were compared: Residual Bootstrap with 500 samples and Quantile Regression. Residual Bootstrap generally produced coverage probabilities closer to the 80% level (i.e., 10–90% prediction interval), especially for office transactions, while maintaining narrower interval widths. In contrast, Quantile Regression tended to generate wider intervals and often overestimated uncertainty, resulting in overly high coverage in some cases. However, both methods showed clear limitations when applied to e-channel transactions, particularly for cash-in e-channel, where coverage probabilities fell below 50% due to high volatility and irregular transaction patterns. Unlike previous work focused only on point forecasts, this study offers insights into forecast uncertainty by evaluating how well each method quantifies, providing practical guidance for financial institutions aiming to improve risk management through interval-based forecasting.</dc:description>
	<dc:publisher xml:lang="en-US">PATTIMURA UNIVERSITY</dc:publisher>
	<dc:date>2025-07-01</dc:date>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion</dc:type>
	<dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
	<dc:identifier>https://ojs3.unpatti.ac.id/index.php/barekeng/article/view/16433</dc:identifier>
	<dc:identifier>10.30598/barekengvol19iss3pp1625-1636</dc:identifier>
	<dc:source xml:lang="en-US">BAREKENG: Jurnal Ilmu Matematika dan Terapan; Vol 19 No 3 (2025): BAREKENG: Journal of Mathematics and Its Application; 1625-1636</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2615-3017</dc:source>
	<dc:source>1978-7227</dc:source>
	<dc:source>10.30598/barekengvol19iss3year2025</dc:source>
	<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
	<dc:relation>https://ojs3.unpatti.ac.id/index.php/barekeng/article/view/16433/10817</dc:relation>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en-US">Copyright (c) 2025 Wa Ode Rahmalia Safitri, Farit Mochamad Afendi, Budi Susetyo</dc:rights>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en-US">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0</dc:rights>
</oai_dc:dc>