MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285394250 · doi:10.3390/math10142446

A Stacking Learning Model Based on Multiple Similar Days for Short-Term Load Forecasting

2022· article· en· W4285394250 on OpenAlexaff
Qi Jiang, Yuxin Cheng, Haozhe Le, Chunquan Li, Peter Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial neural networkLeverage (statistics)Sliding window protocolArtificial intelligenceRobustness (evolution)BackpropagationDeep belief networkMachine learningTime seriesAlgorithmWindow (computing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is challenging to obtain accurate and efficient predictions in short-term load forecasting (STLF) systems due to the complexity and nonlinearity of the electric load signals. To address these problems, we propose a hybrid predictive model that includes a sliding-window algorithm, a stacking ensemble neural network, and a similar-days predictive method. First, we leverage a sliding-window algorithm to process the time-series electric load data with high nonlinearity and non-stationarity. Second, we propose an ensemble learning scheme of stacking neural networks to improve forecasting performance. Specifically, the stacking neural networks contain two types of networks: the base-layer and the meta-layer networks. During the pre-training process, the base-layer network integrates a radial basis function (RBF), random vector functional link (RVFL), and backpropagation neural network (BPNN) to provide a robust predictive model. The meta-layer network utilizes a deep belief network (DBN) and the improved broad learning system (BLS) to enhance predictive accuracy. Finally, the similar-days prediction method is developed to extract the relationship of electric load data in different time dimensions, further enhancing the robustness and accuracy of the model. To demonstrate the effectiveness of our model, it is evaluated using real data from five regions of the United States in three consecutive years. We compare our method with several state-of-the-art and conventional neural-network-based models. Our proposed algorithm improves the prediction accuracy by 16.08%, 16.83%, and 22.64% compared to DWT-EMD-RVFL, SWT-LSTM, and EMD-BLS, respectively. Empirical results demonstrate that our model achieves better accuracy and robustness compared with the baselines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematicsSame topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207