MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Transformer-based deep probabilistic network for load forecasting

2025· article· en· W4409482842 on OpenAlexafffund
Omar Bouhamed, Maher Dissem, Manar Amayri, Nizar Bouguila

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceTransformerProbabilistic logicArtificial intelligenceMachine learningData miningElectrical engineeringVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate electric power load forecasting is critical for power utility companies as it increases control over the relevant infrastructure, resulting in significant improvements in energy management and scheduling. However, point forecasting appears to fall short of providing these businesses with enough information to prepare for the worst. This paper proposes an encoder–decoder model that takes advantage of the expressiveness of Transformer-based encoders to produce probabilistic forecasts, i.e., a distribution over future predictions. Two real-world datasets are utilized to incorporate the performance of the proposed model on two different types of data: hourly load data from the power supply company of the city of Johor in Malaysia and hourly load consumption data from one of Grenoble Institute of Technology’s buildings. The former represents aggregated data, which makes identifying patterns and trends easier, but the latter was taken from a single building (non-aggregated), which increases the difficulty of forecasts. The model’s performance is discussed across multiple time horizons, including 24-hour, 1-week, and 1-month predictions. It achieved notable improvements compared to the used baseline, Amazon DeepAr. For 24 h ahead forecasting, accuracy was increased from 87.2 percent to 96.2 percent for Malaysian data and from 52.3 percent to 68.2 percent for Grenoble data. And for 1 month ahead forecasting, it was improved from 84.7 percent to 89.7 percent for Malaysian data, and from 45.5 percent to 57.2 percent for Grenoble data.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations24
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering Applications of Artificial IntelligenceSame topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207