Optimizing Load Forecasting Configurations of Computational Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Load demand forecasting is a broad branch of electric power systems engineering. In the last few decades, hundreds of methods have been suggested by many brilliant researchers around the world to improve the current forecasting tools. These tools are categorized as: deterministic, probabilistic, stochastic, and artificial intelligent (AI) algorithms. Among these approaches, artificial neural networks (ANNs) proved themselves as very competitive and highly precise methods to accurately forecast energy. ANNs are divided into two main types called: feed-forward networks and recurrent/feedback networks, where each type of them has multiple sub-types. This study tries to improve the performance of any existing type/sub-type of ANNs by optimizing its configuration through using the biogeography-based optimization (BBO) algorithm. The number of input variables, layers, neurons, and the types of activation functions and training algorithm all are optimized. The goal is to preserve the simplicity, so only very simple multi-layer feed-forward ANNs are used instead of using time-series-based feed-forward/feedback ANNs. To prove the effectiveness of hybridizing ANNs with evolutionary algorithms (EAs), numerical simulations are carried-out on some Nova Scotia's loads. The results obtained from these optimally configured ANN s are highly significant, and thus they confirm that allegation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".