MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406248180 · doi:10.3390/en18020278

LSTM vs. Prophet: Achieving Superior Accuracy in Dynamic Electricity Demand Forecasting

2025· article· en· W4406248180 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Saleh Albahli

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQassim University
KeywordsMean absolute percentage errorBenchmark (surveying)Mean squared errorComputer scienceAdaptabilityElectricityGridArtificial intelligenceArtificial neural networkStatisticsEngineeringMathematicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate electricity demand forecasting is critical for improving energy efficiency, maintaining grid stability, reducing operational costs, and promoting sustainability. This study presents a novel hybrid forecasting model that integrates Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks and Prophet models, leveraging their complementary strengths through a dynamic weighted ensemble methodology. The LSTM component captures nonlinear dependencies and long-term temporal patterns, while Prophet models seasonal trends and event-driven fluctuations. The hybrid model was evaluated using a comprehensive dataset of hourly electricity consumption from Ontario, Canada, achieving a Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of 65.34, Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) of 7.3%, and an R2 of 0.98. These results demonstrate significant improvements over standalone LSTM, Prophet, and other State-of-the-Art methods, highlighting the hybrid model’s adaptability and superior accuracy. This study underscores the practical implications of the hybrid approach, particularly in energy grid management and resource optimization, setting a new benchmark for time series forecasting in the energy sector.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations24
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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