MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991062704 · doi:10.1109/ecce.2019.8912917

A Generic Load Forecasting Method for Aggregated Thermostatically Controlled Loads Based on Convolutional Neural Networks

2019· article· en· W2991062704 on OpenAlexaff
Xun Gong, Eduardo Castillo-Guerra, Julián Cárdenas-Barrera, Bo Cao, Liuchen Chang, S. A. Saleh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsEnergie NB Power (Canada)University of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneralizationComputer scienceDemand responseConvolutional neural networkDemand forecastingQuantization (signal processing)Artificial neural networkMachine learningData miningArtificial intelligenceElectricityEngineeringAlgorithmOperations researchMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thermostatically Controlled Loads (TCLs) are excellent candidates for demand response. Load forecasting of aggregated TCLs is used to help utility companies predict and manage their load demand. This paper presents a generic load forecasting method that aims at providing accurate forecast for different TCL datasets without the need of extracting specific predictors. It relies on Data Quantization and Dequantization modules to processes the inputs and outputs, and a group of Convolutional Neural Network modules used for automatic feature learning and multi-horizon load demand forecasting. The forecasting method was studied with different simulated TCLs data and aggregation sizes resulting in an enhanced performance when compared with three traditional forecasting methods. Additionally, the generalization capacity of the proposed forecasting method was studied with real data from a conference environment (building) corroborating the performance advantage of the method and the generalization capacity of the "predictor-less" approach.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207