MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392164686 · doi:10.1002/9781394167319.ch2

Renewable Power Generation Price Prediction and Forecasting Using Machine Learning

2024· other· en· W4392164686 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Challa Krishna Rao, Sarat Kumar Sahoo, Franco Fernando Yanine

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectricity price forecastingRenewable energyComputer sciencePredictive powerMachine learningEconometricsEconomicsArtificial intelligenceElectricity priceEngineeringElectricityElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the power market, electricity price forecasting (EPF) is a crucial consideration for decision-making. The need to optimize earnings by adjusting bids in day-ahead power markets is becoming more and more important to different market participants. Prior information is required for marketers to have an advantage over the competition while controlling the risk of pricing fluctuation. However, not all marketers must accurately predict the worth of future pricing when making decisions. To make a choice, it is necessary to determine whether the cost will be prohibitive. Thus, in order to determine the prices that have an impact on marketers, electricity price classification is first performed. Based on a threshold value, prices are categorized as low class prices and high class pricing. In order to determine the precise value of prices for utility maximization, the EPF has been explored next. In order to maximize advantage or utility, buying and selling bidding techniques rely on the accurate projections of prices for the following day. Effective forecasting models can improve the performance of producers and consumers, who play important roles in the electrical markets. The EPF approaches now in use produce complicated models and are not generalizable.The best method for forecasting prices with superior generalization performance, kernel functions, and distributive prediction is to use machine learning (ML)-based models. In order to forecast prices, machine learning-based electricity price forecasting has been studied. On the markets of Ontario, Austria, and India, the ML models have been put to the test. Neural networks, support vector machines, core vector machines, information vector machines, and relevance vector machines (RVM) have all been used with EPF, and their performances have been assessed in order to determine the optimum model. When all of these models are examined, it becomes clear that RVM is the most effective and trustworthy ML approach for various markets. The price of power fluctuates a lot, with both typical costs and spikes that might be tens to hundreds of times higher than the average price range. The prediction for the overall price of energy is created by adding together average prices and price peaks. A good and precise price spike forecast is required because price spikes have a big influence on the electrical market. As a result, a threshold value has also been used to forecast the spike value. The potential for more research in this field has also been emphasized.

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)0.003
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207