MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206269627 · doi:10.11121/ijocta.2022.1084

Multi-objective regression modeling for natural gas prediction with ridge regression and CMARS

2022· article· en· W4206269627 on OpenAlexafffund
Ayşe Özmen

Bibliographic record

VenueAn International Journal of Optimization and Control Theories & Applications (IJOCTA) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersTürkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma KurumuOrta Doğu Teknik ÜniversitesiÇankaya ÜniversitesiUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsMultivariate adaptive regression splinesCollinearityStatisticsEconometricsRegressionMars Exploration ProgramTime horizonRegression analysisHarvest seasonComputer scienceMathematicsPolynomial regressionMathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Residential customers are the main users generally need a great quantity of natural gas in distribution systems, especially, in the wintry weather season since it is particularly consumed for cooking and space heating. Hence, it ought to be non-interruptible. Since distribution systems have a restricted ability for supply, reasonable planning and prediction through the whole year, especially in winter seasons, have emerged as vital. The Ridge Regression (RR) is formulated mainly to decrease collinearity results through shrinking the regression coefficients and reducing the impact in the model of variables. Conic multivariate adaptive regression splines ((C)MARS) model is constructed as an effective choice for MARS by using inverse problems, statistical learning, and multi-objective optimization theories. In this approach, the model complexity is penalized in the structure of RR and it is constructed a relaxation by utilizing continuous optimization, called Conic Quadratic Programming (CQP). In this study, CMARS and RR are applied to obtain forecasts of residential natural gas demand for local distribution companies (LDCs) that require short-term forecasts, and the model performances are compared by using some criteria. Here, our analysis shows that CMARS models outperform RR models. For one-day-ahead forecasts, CMARS yields a MAPE of about 4.8%, while the same value under RR reaches 8.5%. As the forecast horizon increases, it can be seen that the performance of the methods becomes worse, and for a forecast one week ahead, the MAPE values for CMARS and RR are 9.9% and 18.3%, respectively.

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 score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAn International Journal of Optimization and Control Theories & Applications (IJOCTA)Same topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207