A deep LSTM‐CNN based on self‐attention mechanism with input data reduction for short‐term load forecasting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Numerous studies on short‐term load forecasting (STLF) have used feature extraction methods to increase the model's accuracy by incorporating multidimensional features containing time, weather and distance information. However, less attention has been paid to the input data size and output dimensions in STLF. To address these two issues, an STLF model is proposed based on output dimensions using only load data. First, the load data's long‐term behavior (trend and seasonality) is extracted through the long short‐term memory network (LSTM), followed by convolution to obtain the load data's non‐stationarity. Then, using the self‐attention mechanism (SAM), the crucial input load information is emphasized in the forecasting process. The calculation example shows that the proposed algorithm outperforms LSTM, LSTM‐based SAM, and CNN‐GRU‐based SAM by more than 10% in eight different buildings, demonstrating its suitability for forecasting with only load data. Additionally, compared to earlier research utilizing two well‐known public data sets, the MAPE is optimized by 2.2% and 5%, respectively. Also, the method has good prediction accuracy for a wide variety of time granularities and load aggregation levels, so it can be applied to various load forecasting scenarios and has good reference significance for load forecasting instrumentation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".