MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Intelligent Probabilistic Forecasts of Day-Ahead Electricity Prices in a Highly Volatile Power Market

2021· article· en· W3199990629 on OpenAlexaffabout
Behrouz Banitalebi, S.S. Appadoo, Yuvraj Gajpal, A. Thavaneswaran

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbabilistic logicElectricityElectricity marketComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceElectrical engineeringEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electricity price forecasting plays an important role in decision making on bidding strategies of selling and buying electricity. This paper computes one day-ahead (DA) quantile forecasts of electricity prices in a highly volatile market by applying regression models to a pool of point forecasts. Three data-driven forecasting methods are implemented to generate DA point forecasts of the Ontario market’s electricity prices. In order to generate the three sets of point forecasts, we use: i) the triple exponential smoothing (TES) method, ii) a neural network (NN) that combines layers of Convolutional neurons and gradient recurrent units (GRU), iii) an extreme gradient boosted (XGB) non-linear regression approach. Performance of the three models compared against a benchmark which considers the forecast of electricity prices as the average price of the same hour and day during the last four weeks. The TES method decreases the mean absolute error (MAE) of the benchmark model from 10.29 to 9.42. The Convolutional GRU (ConvGRU) model and XGB regression also reduce the MAE to 8.20 and 7.06, respectively. Finally, quantile regression averaging (QRA) is applied to the pool of point forecasts obtained by TES, ConvGRU, and XGB methods to compute DA quantile forecasts of electricity prices. Moreover, the QRA method is further developed in this work by employing gradient boosting non-linear regression (GBR). Our analysis using real data reveals that the GBR method provides more reliable quantiles as well as tighter prediction intervals with smaller forecasting errors than QRA.

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 score0.321
Threshold uncertainty score0.725

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207