MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Price Forecasting for Day Ahead Energy Markets: A Difference Boosting Approach

2025· article· en· W4414956686 on OpenAlexaff
Nandinee Fariah Haq, Xiaoming Feng, Mohamed Hussein Eissa, Elisabetta Vallarino, Silvia Picerno

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsHitachi (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiddingElectricity price forecastingGradient boostingElectricity marketEnergy marketElectricityEnergy (signal processing)Boosting (machine learning)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the energy sector is being restructured, the way electrical power is traded is changing across the globe and energy trading are becoming the focal points of the power grids. In developed energy markets, energy trading is pivotal and plays a crucial role in the modern economy, impacting both producers and consumers. Forecasts for the day ahead energy market prices play a critical role for the market participants, who formulate their bidding decision based on the forecasts. Reliable and accurate forecasts translate to better bidding decision and impacts the overall market efficiency. While machine learning based forecasting solutions have resulted in better market price forecasts, these models have an underlying assumption that the system under consideration is stationary, which does not hold for energy market prices since both the prices and its covariates have long term varying trend making them non-stationary systems. In this work, we propose a difference learning based machine learning approach for forecasting day ahead energy market price. Our approach uses gradient boosted trees to learn the deviations in prices from its corresponding covariates. To evaluate the performance of the proposed technique, two distinct markets are selected-the Midcontinent ISO electricity markets, and the Danish market from the DK2 region. We report improved forecasting accuracy with the proposed technique while compared with state of the art forecasting techniques.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMarket Dynamics and Volatility→French-language works237,207→