MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An ensemble deep learning model for short-term load forecasting based on ARIMA and LSTM

2019· article· en· W2991539995 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lingling Tang, Yulin Yi, Yuexing Peng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoregressive integrated moving averageComputer sciencePayload (computing)Term (time)Electrical loadElectric power systemPower (physics)Artificial intelligenceTime seriesMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrical load forecasting is an important part of power system planning and operation, which can guide the power enterprises to arrange generation plan reasonably, reduce the cost of power generation, and provide a reference for power grid reconstruction and optimization. However, due to the complicated inner non-linear property and seasonality pattern of electrical load, accurate short-term load forecasting (STLF) is of big challenge. In this paper, we firstly study the large time-span quasi-periodicity of load sequences, including the inner correlation of a short load segment and the quasi-periodicity among the load segments spanning different time duration from a week to a month. Then, an ensemble method is proposed, which combines Auto-regressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) and Long Short Term Memory (LSTM) in order to fully exploit the large time-span quasi-periodicity of the loads. Here, ARIMA model captures the stationary pattern of the load segments, while LSTM extracts the complicated non-linear relations of load segments. The proposed method is evaluated on a data set of load consumption in Toronto, and the results show the proposed method outperforms the existing popular STLF models with a small payload of computational complexity.

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 score0.367
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations28
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207