4.6 Article

Advanced ML-Based Ensemble and Deep Learning Models for Short-Term Load Forecasting: Comparative Analysis Using Feature Engineering

期刊

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
卷 12, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app12104882

关键词

accuracy; bagging ensemble; deep learning; machine learning; short-term load forecasting

资金

  1. Center of Excellence in Logistics and Supply Chain Systems Engineering and Technology (LogEn Tech), Sirindhorn International Institute of Technology, Thammasat University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Short-term load forecasting is crucial in the electricity industry, and this study proposes a bagging ensemble model combining linear regression and support vector regression. It outperforms deep learning models in terms of accuracy.
Short-term load forecasting (STLF) plays a pivotal role in the electricity industry because it helps reduce, generate, and operate costs by balancing supply and demand. Recently, the challenge in STLF has been the load variation that occurs in each period, day, and seasonality. This work proposes the bagging ensemble combining two machine learning (ML) models-linear regression (LR) and support vector regression (SVR). For comparative analysis, the performance of the proposed model is evaluated and compared with three advanced deep learning (DL) models, namely, the deep neural network (DNN), long short-term memory (LSTM), and hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN)+LSTM models. These models are trained and tested on the data collected from the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) with four different input features. The forecasting performance is measured considering mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), mean absolute error (MAE), and mean squared error (MSE) parameters. Using several input features, experimental results show that the integrated model provides better accuracy than others. Therefore, it can be revealed that our approach could improve accuracy using different data in different forecasting fields.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据