MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Improved Forecasting of Short Term Electricity Demand by using of Integrated Data Preparation and Input Selection Methods

2019· article· en· W2908412753 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Azadeh Arjmand, Reza Samizadeh, Mohammad Dehghani Saryazdi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Energy Management and Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoregressive integrated moving averageNormalization (sociology)Nonlinear autoregressive exogenous modelParametric statisticsSelection (genetic algorithm)Term (time)Autoregressive modelComputer scienceModel selectionStatisticsEconometricsTime seriesMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main aim of this paper is to emphasize on the significant role of data pre-processing phase in improving the short-term load demand forecasting. Different transformation approaches including normalization, Zscore and Box-Cox method are applied and various input selection methods including forward selection, backward selection, stepwise regression and principle component analysis are used to see how the combination of these pre-processing techniques will influence the performance of different parametric (ARIMA, ARIMAX, MLR) and non-parametric (NAR, NARX, SVR, ANFIS) predictors. The data was collected from the daily load demand of Ottawa, Canada. It was observed that the Box-Cox transformation significantly improved the performance of all predictors and the findings demonstrated the superior role of exogenous variables in accuracy improvement of all predictors. In terms of MAPE, the value of 2.27% for ARIMA model improved to 1.75% with ARIMAX using temperature, and it decreased from 1.46% to 1.334% by means of NARX model using normalized PCA which is applied on normalized data. In an overall view, the non-parametric algorithms had a considerable gain over parametric models and NARX network had the highest accuracy among all of the predictors.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Energy Management and TechnologySame topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207