MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Short-Term Load Forecasting for AI-Data Center

2025· article· W4416136955 on OpenAlexaff
Mariam Mughees, Yuzhuo Li, Yize Chen, Yunwei Li

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Computing and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData centerWorkflowComputationPower (physics)ElectricityElectric power systemInferenceCenter (category theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent research shows large-scale AI-centric data centers could experience rapid fluctuations in power demand due to varying computation loads such as sudden spikes from inference or interruption of training large language models (LLMs). As a consequence, such huge and fluctuating power demand pose significant challenges to both data center and power utility operation. Accurate short-term power forecasting allows data centers and utilities to dynamically allocate resources and power large computing clusters as required. However, due to the complex data center power system structure and the black-box nature of the underlying AI algorithms running in data centers, explicit modeling of AI-data center is quite challenging. Alternatively, to deal with this emerging load forecasting problem, we propose a data-driven workflow to predict the short-term electricity load in an AI-data center, and such workflow is compatible with learning-based algorithms such as LSTM, GRU, 1D-CNN. We validate our framework, which achieves decent accuracy on data center GPU short-term power consumption. This provides opportunity for improved power management and sustainable data center operation.

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)0.002
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207