MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3029705877 · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2997942

Residential Power Forecasting Based on Affinity Aggregation Spectral Clustering

2020· article· en· W3029705877 on OpenAlexafffund
Chinthaka Dinesh, Stephen Makonin, Ivan V. Bajić

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Energy Management
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceCluster analysisSpectral clusteringScheduleAutoregressive modelData miningArtificial intelligenceEconometricsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Power utility companies rely on forecasting to anticipate future consumption needs, plan power production, and schedule the selling/purchasing of power. We present a novel method to forecast the power consumption of a single house based on non-intrusive load monitoring (NILM) and affinity aggregation spectral clustering, with the idea of extending it to forecasting consumption in a larger set of houses like a microgrid. First, we use a graph to model statistical relationships between appliances. Specifically, the ON/OFF time-of-day and state duration probabilities are used to compute graph edge weights and establish statistical relationships among appliances. Then, leveraging on our previous work on NILM, we disaggregate the smart meter aggregate power profile into individual appliance power profiles. With the disaggregated individual power profiles and the corresponding ON/OFF time-of-day and state duration probabilities, we next propose a method to forecast each appliance's power profiles using affinity aggregation spectral clustering. For the proposed method, we incorporate human behaviour and environmental influence in terms of calendar and seasonal contexts in order to enhance the forecasting performance. Finally, the results of appliance-level forecasting are aggregated to perform house-level forecasting. To test our proposed forecasting method, we use four publicly available datasets and compare our method against several existing approaches such as autoregressive integrated moving average, similar profile load forecast, artificial neural network, and recent NILM-based forecasting. Experimentally, we examine how well the proposed forecasting method can generalize appliance behaviours from one house to another. Results clearly show that our method is more accurate than existing approaches.

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 score0.209
Threshold uncertainty score0.678

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations20
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicSmart Grid Energy ManagementFrench-language works237,207