MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415819927 · doi:10.3390/a18110695

Machine Learning Systems Tuned by Bayesian Optimization to Forecast Electricity Demand and Production

2025· article· en· W4415819927 on OpenAlexaff
Zhen Wang, Salim Lahmiri, Stelios Bekiros

Bibliographic record

VenueAlgorithms · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperparameterBayesian optimizationRenewable energyWind powerElectricity generationConvolutional neural networkArtificial neural networkElectricityHyperparameter optimizationProduction (economics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the critical importance of accurate energy demand and production forecasting in managing power grids and integrating renewable energy sources, this study explores the application of advanced machine learning techniques to forecast electricity load and wind generation data in Austria, Germany, and the Netherlands at different sampling frequencies: 15 min and 60 min. Specifically, we assess the performance of the convolutional neural networks (CNNs), temporal CNN (TCNN), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), bidirectional LSTM (BiLSTM), Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU), bidirectional GRU (BiGRU), and the deep neural network (DNN). In addition, the standard machine learning models, namely the k-nearest neighbors (kNN) algorithm and decision trees (DTs), are adopted as baseline predictive models. Bayesian optimization is applied for hyperparameter tuning across multiple models. In total, 54 experimental tasks were performed. For the electricity load at 15 min intervals, the DT shows exceptional performance, while for the electricity load at 60 min intervals, DNN performs the best, in general. For wind generation at 15 min intervals, DT is the best performer, while for wind generation at 60 min intervals, both DT and TCNN provide good results, in general. The insights derived from this study not only advance the field of energy forecasting but also offer practical implications for energy policymakers and stakeholders in optimizing grid performance and renewable energy integration.

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)0.005
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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