MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Internet of Energy: Ensemble Learning through Multilevel Stacking for Load Forecasting

2020· article· en· W3101652029 on OpenAlexaff
Shailendra Singh, Abdulsalam Yassine, Rachid Benlamri

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultivariate adaptive regression splinesGradient boostingComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMean squared errorSupport vector machineRandom forestPrincipal component analysisEnsemble learningBoosting (machine learning)Mean absolute percentage errorData miningElectricityStackingRegression analysisStatisticsArtificial neural networkEngineeringMathematicsBayesian multivariate linear regression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the Internet of Energy (IoE) ecosystem, an accurate electricity load forecasting is critically important to all the participants in the smart grids, such as manufacturers, utility companies, renewable energy generators, consumers and prosumers. It is a vital component for a stable and reliable operation of the electricity grid, effective demand side management, and the success of energy efficiency programs. We present a novel ensemble learning mechanism through multi-level stacking for the load forecasting. Our proposed architecture has four layers utilizing strong learners at each level (base and meta) with an input features set, at all the levels, that includes initial (original) variables/features from the dataset along with meta-features extracted during stacking. We use computational intelligence (CI) techniques such as Random Forest, Cubist, k-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), Support Vector Machine Regression (SVM-R), Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines (MARS), and Principal Component Regression (PCR) to train participating prediction models at various levels of stacking. The results show significant improvement in performance with Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) reduced by 36.81%, a 38.82% reduction in Mean Absolute Error(MAE), and R <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> increased from 0.787 to 0.923 when compared to single forecasting model.

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 score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.712

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207