MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046820006 · doi:10.1109/epec.2013.6802948

A hybrid genetic radial basis function network with fuzzy corrector for short term load forecasting

2013· article· en· W2046820006 on OpenAlexaff
W. T. Ghareeb

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRadial basis functionTerm (time)Electric power systemArtificial neural networkGenetic algorithmAdaptive neuro fuzzy inference systemFuzzy logicScheduling (production processes)Mathematical optimizationRadial basis function networkArtificial intelligenceFuzzy control systemPower (physics)Machine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The short term load forecasting plays a critical role in power system operation and economics. The accuracy of short term load forecasting is very important since it affects generation scheduling and electricity prices, and hence an accurate short term load forecasting method should be used. This paper proposes a Genetic Algorithm optimized Radial Basis Function network (GA-RBF) with a fuzzy corrector for the problem of short term load forecasting. In order to demonstrate this system capability, the system has been compared with four well known techniques in the area of load forecasting. These techniques are the multi-layer feed forward neural network, the RBF network, the adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference System and the genetic programming. The data used in this study is a real data of the Egyptian electrical network. The weather factors represented in the minimum and the maximum daily temperature have been included in this study. The GA-RBF with the fuzzy corrector has successfully forecasted the future load with high accuracy compared to that of the other load forecasting techniques included in this study.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.417
Threshold uncertainty score0.808

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.168 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207