Load Forecasting Techniques for Power System: Research Challenges and Survey
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main and pivot part of electric companies is the load forecasting. Decision-makers and think tank of power sectors should forecast the future need of electricity with large accuracy and small error to give uninterrupted and free of load shedding power to consumers. The demand of electricity can be forecasted amicably by many Machine Learning (ML), Deep Learning (DL) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques among which hybrid methods are most popular. The present technologies of load forecasting and present work regarding combination of various ML, DL and AI algorithms are reviewed in this paper. The comprehensive review of single and hybrid forecasting models with functions; advantages and disadvantages are discussed in this paper. The comparison between the performance of the models in terms of Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), and Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) values are compared and discussed with literature of different models to support the researchers to select the best model for load prediction. This comparison validates the fact that the hybrid forecasting models will provide a more optimal solution.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it