4.6 Article

Deterioration of Electrical Load Forecasting Models in a Smart Grid Environment

期刊

SENSORS
卷 22, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s22124363

关键词

energy management; adaptive models; generation modalities; load forecasting; machine learning; model deterioration; power stability; Smart Grid

资金

  1. Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS (UTP)
  2. Yayasan Universiti Teknologi Petronas (YUTP) through the Grant Cost Center [YUTP 015LC0-360]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study proposes a novel adaptive framework to overcome existing limitations in electrical load forecasting models. The framework improves model accuracy and adapts to dynamic parameter variations, making it applicable in smart grid and different generation mode environments.
Smart Grid (S.G.) is a digitally enabled power grid with an automatic capability to control electricity and information between utility and consumer. S.G. data streams are heterogenous and possess a dynamic environment, whereas the existing machine learning methods are static and stand obsolete in such environments. Since these models cannot handle variations posed by S.G. and utilities with different generation modalities (D.G.M.), a model with adaptive features must comply with the requirements and fulfill the demand for new data, features, and modality. In this study, we considered two open sources and one real-world dataset and observed the behavior of ARIMA, ANN, and LSTM concerning changes in input parameters. It was found that no model observed the change in input parameters until it was manually introduced. It was observed that considered models experienced performance degradation and deterioration from 5 to 15% in terms of accuracy relating to parameter change. Therefore, to improve the model accuracy and adapt the parametric variations, which are dynamic in nature and evident in S.G. and D.G.M. environments. The study has proposed a novel adaptive framework to overcome the existing limitations in electrical load forecasting models.

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