Performance comparison of single and ensemble CNN, LSTM and traditional ANN models for short‐term electricity load forecasting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The authors propose bagged and boosted convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and long short‐term memory (LSTM) networks, and compare their performance with the bagged and boosted traditional shallow artificial neural networks (ANNs) for short‐term electricity load forecasting. Unlike existing references that mainly compare the performance of ensemble deep learning with single deep learning and machine learning techniques, three further performance comparisons are carried out: (1) bagged CNNs and bagged LSTMs, (2) boosted CNNs and LSTMs, and (3) bagged CNNs and bagged LSTMs, and boosted CNNs and LSTMs. This allows an insight into the individual effects of ensemble learning on CNNs and LSTMs. The proposed models' inputs consist of weather and time‐related features in addition to the past load. The use of these features allows CNNs and LSTMs to estimate further complex relationship between them and the load. We implement all these methods and compare their performance on the same New England electricity load forecasting data set via statistical analysis. Effects on the forecasting performance with reduced training data are further shown. The LSTM models have the largest performance variation and are also more sensitive to a reduction in training data. In these models, boosting can improve both prediction accuracy and consistency.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".