MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Modeling of Short-Term Electricity Demand and Comparison of Machine Learning Approaches for Load Forecasting

2020· article· en· W3088641311 on OpenAlexaff
Behrouz Banitalebi, S.S. Appadoo, A. Thavaneswaran, Md. Erfanul Hoque

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerm (time)Computer scienceElectricityDemand forecastingElectricity demandMachine learningIndustrial engineeringArtificial intelligenceElectricity generationOperations researchEngineeringPower (physics)Electrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electricity is a special commodity that has to be kept available at all times. In fact, power plants need to have accurate forecast of electricity demand in order to provide enough electricity for customers. Final customers are able to establish their own power plants to decrease their dependency on the grid. For example rooftop photovoltaic panels are getting more popular among residential customers. It seems that meteorological variables such as solar irradiance play an important role in load forecasting. Moreover, temperature is also a main determinant of electricity demand. In this paper, we propose a model for short-term load forecasting which consists of hourly weather data (including seasonal variation as well) and historical load data. Machine learning algorithms such as support vector regression (SVR), least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression and a multilayer neural network (NN) are used for short-term load forecasting. In order to improve the forecast accuracy (smaller mean absolute error) of NN, we propose a dual phase forecasting method. In the first phase, data driven double exponential smoothing (DDDES) is used to generate electricity load forecasts. In the second phase, the results of first phase forecasting are fed into a multilayer NN to have more accurate forecasts of electricity demand. It is shown that NN outperforms the other two methods. Our data analysis shows a significant improvement in terms of performance where maximum mean absolute error (MAE) decreases from 367.26 to 115.30.

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 score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.162 · 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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207