Web-Books
in the Austria-Forum
Austria-Forum
Web-Books
Informatik
Short-Term Load Forecasting by Artificial Intelligent Technologies
Page - 276 -
  • User
  • Version
    • full version
    • text only version
  • Language
    • Deutsch - German
    • English

Page - 276 - in Short-Term Load Forecasting by Artificial Intelligent Technologies

Image of the Page - 276 -

Image of the Page - 276 - in Short-Term Load Forecasting by Artificial Intelligent Technologies

Text of the Page - 276 -

Energies2018,11, 1605 Similarly, Figure 2b demonstrated the residual errors of the prediction, to make a reliable comparisontoquantitativelyanalyze theperformancesof thebasemodels;weconsideredtheMAPE measure indices forperformanceaccuracyprocesses,whichare listed inTable3. Inbrief, asseen inTable3, theMAPEbetweenpredictedandactualvalues for theSVRmodel is 1.24%givenbyrelativeaccuracy(DA)89.9%whichindicatesclearlythattheSVRmodeliswellworking andhasacceptableaccuracy.Regardingthesameaspect,wecanobserve that theSVRhadsuperiority inbothruntimeandsimilarity (0.01and0.034, respectively).However, it isworthmentioningthat the LRmodelsscoredpoorperformancecomparedtoothersinglemodels. Thesimilaritybetweenactual andpredicteddatawasmeasuredusingtheEuclideanDistance (ED),asshowninTable3; theBPNN score0.034,whichwassmall indicates thebestpredictiveperformance,whileLRscores0.074was the worst similarityacross themodels. 3.2. ClassicEnsembleModelsResults In thesecondexperiment,weempirically testedtwoclassicalensemblemodels, includedbagging andadditive regression (AR). To illustrate thebehavior of all classical ensemblefitting, theywere comparedwithactualdata inFigure3a,b, forvisualcomparisonof theresidualerrorofeachmodel. Theevaluationmatrixof single learning, classical ensemblemethods, andproposedSMLEmodels are summarized inTable3. Asobserved fromTable3andFigure3, thebaggingmodelperformed better than theARmodel in all evaluationmeasures, except inDA. Similarly, the baggingmodel performedbetter thanthebest singlemodel (SVR) inperformanceandsimilaritywhileSVRperform best inDAandhas least trainingtime. For thisdataset,weaccordinglydevelopedhomogeneousand heterogeneousensemblesof individualmodels rather thanusingtheirhybridversions. Figure3. Illustrated(a) actualandpredictedconsumptionusingclassicensemble learners (b) errorof classicensemblemodels. 3.3. TheSMLEResults In the thirdexperiment,weempirically testedthreeheterogeneousstackingmodels, eachmodel wascomposedofacombinationofbaseandmeta-models. ThefirstensemblemodelconsistsofSVR asabase learnerandLRasmeta-learner. To illustrate thebehaviorofallSMLEforfitting, theywere comparedwithactualdata inFigure4a,b, forvisualcomparisonof theresidualerrorofeachmodel. Theevaluationmatrixof single learningmethods,andproposedframework is summarized inTable3. 276
back to the  book Short-Term Load Forecasting by Artificial Intelligent Technologies"
Short-Term Load Forecasting by Artificial Intelligent Technologies
Title
Short-Term Load Forecasting by Artificial Intelligent Technologies
Authors
Wei-Chiang Hong
Ming-Wei Li
Guo-Feng Fan
Editor
MDPI
Location
Basel
Date
2019
Language
English
License
CC BY 4.0
ISBN
978-3-03897-583-0
Size
17.0 x 24.4 cm
Pages
448
Keywords
Scheduling Problems in Logistics, Transport, Timetabling, Sports, Healthcare, Engineering, Energy Management
Category
Informatik
Web-Books
Library
Privacy
Imprint
Austria-Forum
Austria-Forum
Web-Books
Short-Term Load Forecasting by Artificial Intelligent Technologies