Analysis of the Coupling and Coordination Relationship between the Evolution of Enterprise Spatial Structure and Economic Development Based on the Deep Learning Model

Abstract

This study is based on the unsupervised learning-based enterprise spatial structure evolution and economic coupling coordination relationship situation assessment method. Pattern recognition has high-precision characteristics, but it is necessary to train the evaluation model for the enterprise spatial structure evolution in advance and then carry out economic coupling coordination based on the trained model. The conclusions are as follows: (1) through the RC1, RC2, RC3, RC4, RC5, and RC6 evaluation indicators to evaluate the situation evaluation method based on the unsupervised learning of the evolution of the enterprise spatial structure and the economic coupling and coordination relationship, it is found that the main component characteristics as a whole meet the standard. The optimal RC is RC6: profit = −0.0885, highest = −0.0809, lowest = −0.0932, WR.WR2 = 0.0038, MA.MA3 = −0.0782, MTM.MTM = −0.0427, OSC.OSC = −0.0355, ROC.MAROC = 0.0105, SKDJ.D = −0.0268, BIAS-QL.BIAS = −0.01, WIDTH.WIDTH = 0.2408, CYD.CYDN = −0.0961, FSL.SWL = −0.0868ADTM.ADTM = −0.0379, ATR.ATR = −0.0278, DMA.DIFMA = −0.0358, DMI.ADX = 0.8516, DMI.ADXR = 0.854, EMV.EMV = −0.0942, VMACD.DIF = 0.3312, and UOS.MAUOS = −0.0846.2. Based on the deep learning model of the coupling and coordination relationship between the evolution of the spatial structure of the enterprise, the time-dependent matrix comparison experiment is divided into directed + self, directed, undirected + self, and undirected time for comparison. The experimental results on directed + self are the best; with various indicators, the upward improvement is above 10%: CP = 0.8611, CR = 0.9353, C–F1 = 0.8967, EP = 0.8865, ER = 0.857, E–F1 = 0.917, OP = 0.856, OR = 0.9845, and O–F1 = 0.99.3. The time cost, profit, and transaction volume data of the company are collected for a certain period of time, and simulation experiments are conducted to get a small difference between the predicted result and the actual data. The January data are closest to the true value: cost = 30.78, profit = 30.11, highest = 30.1, lowest = 29.7, WR.WR1 = 81.21, WR.WR2 = 45.62, AMV.AMV2 = 32.67, AMV.AMV3 = 34.95, and MCST. MCST = 36.08.4. In the model score, the best performance of LSTM data is CP = 0.3829, CR = 0.3664, C–F1 = 0.3744, EP = 0.3726, ER = 0.3004, E–F1 = 0.3326, OP = 0.9155, OR = 0.9316, and O–F1 = 0.9234, which is better than the BiLSTM model with CP = 0.3648, CR = 0.3319, C–F1 = 0.3392, EP = 0.4402, ER = 0.391, E–F1 = 0.4145, OP = 0.9215, OR = 0.9318, and O–F1 = 0.9266.