Training Subset Selection in Hourly Ontario Energy Price Forecasting using Time Series Clustering-based Stratification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Training a given learning-based forecasting method to a satisfactory level of performance often requires a large dataset. Indeed, any data-driven methods require having examples that are providing a satisfactory representation of what we want to model to work properly. This often implies using large datasets to be sure that the phenomenon of interest is properly sampled. However, learning from time series composed of too many samples can also be a problem, given that the computational requirements of the learning algorithms can easily grow following a polynomial complexity according to the training set size. In order to identify representative examples of a dataset, we are proposing a methodology using clustering-based stratification of time series to select a training data subset. The principle for constructing a representative sample set using this method consists in selecting heterogeneous instances picked from all the various clusters composing the dataset. Results obtained show that with a small number of training examples, obtained through the proposed clustering-based stratification, we can preserve the performance and improve the stability of models such as artificial neural networks and support vector regression, while training at a much lower computational cost. We illustrate the methodology through forecasting the one-step ahead Hourly Ontario Energy Price (HOEP).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".