4.7 Article

Federated learning with hyperparameter-based clustering for electrical load forecasting

期刊

INTERNET OF THINGS
卷 17, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.iot.2021.100470

关键词

Federated learning; Electricity load forecasting; Edge computing; LSTM; Decentralized learning

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada [ALLRP 549804-19]
  2. Alberta Electric System Operator
  3. AltaLink
  4. ATCO Electric
  5. ENMAX
  6. EPCOR Inc., Canada
  7. FortisAlberta, Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper evaluates the performance of federated learning for short-term forecasting of individual house loads as well as the aggregate load, and discusses its advantages and disadvantages by comparing it to centralized and local learning schemes. By proposing a new client clustering method, the convergence time of federated learning can be reduced.
Electrical load prediction has become an integral part of power system operation. Deep learning models have found popularity for this purpose. However, to achieve a desired prediction accuracy, they require huge amounts of data for training. Sharing electricity consumption data of individual households for load prediction may compromise user privacy and can be expensive in terms of communication resources. Therefore, edge computing methods, such as federated learning, are gaining more importance for this purpose. These methods can take advantage of the data without centrally storing it. This paper evaluates the performance of federated learning for short-term forecasting of individual house loads as well as the aggregate load. It discusses the advantages and disadvantages of this method by comparing it to centralized and local learning schemes. Moreover, a new client clustering method is proposed to reduce the convergence time of federated learning. The results show that federated learning has a good performance with a minimum root mean squared error (RMSE) of 0.117 kWh for individual load forecasting.

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

4.7
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