MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Locational Marginal Price Forecasting Based on Deep Neural Networks and Prophet Techniques

2021· article· en· W3216057549 on OpenAlexaff
Abdussalam T. Mohamed, Hamed H. Aly, Timothy Little

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectricity marketElectricityComputer scienceElectricity price forecastingProfit (economics)Python (programming language)Artificial neural networkEconometricsElectric power systemMATLABEconomic forecastingTime seriesDemand forecastingOperations researchEconomicsMicroeconomicsArtificial intelligencePower (physics)Machine learningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many of the electricity markets in North America, the electricity prices are in terms of the locational marginal price (LMP) which reflects the cost of supplying the next MWh of electricity at a bus, considering transmission constraints. Electricity price forecasting provides vital information on system conditions to the independent system operator (ISO). It indicates important signals pertaining to the need of investing in the new generation, upgrading transmission, or reducing electricity consumption. Power suppliers and consumers use the forecasted price to optimize the profit in the day-ahead market and bilateral contracts. Facility owners rely on the forecasted price to make investment decisions. Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) and Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) networks are applied to improve short-term (time series) LMP forecasting accuracy. Dataset from the ISO-NE power market is utilized in modeling and analysis in which the proposed techniques are applied using Matlab and Python software. Various methods are evaluated and compared, and the conclusions achieved show that LSTM has lower error rates and higher accuracy than the Prophet forecasting model in 24 h-ahead LMP forecasting.

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 score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207