Cited by 118Energy Load and Power ForecastingSmart Grid Energy ManagementSolar Radiation and Photovoltaics

Deep learning versus traditional machine learning methods for aggregated energy demand prediction

Paterakis, Nikolaos G., Mocanu, Elena, Gibescu, Madeleine, Stappers, Bart, van Alst, Walter·2017·2017 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference Europe (ISGT-Europe)

Abstract

In this paper the more advanced, in comparison with traditional machine learning approaches, deep learning methods are explored with the purpose of accurately predicting the aggregated energy consumption. Despite the fact that a wide range of machine learning methods have been applied to probabilistic energy prediction, the deep learning ones certainly represent the state-of-the-art artificial intelligence methods with remarkable success in a spectrum of practical applications. In particular, the use of Multi Layer Perceptrons, recently enhanced with deep learning capabilities, is proposed. Furthermore, its performance is compared with the most commonly used machine learning methods, such as Support Vector Machines, Gaussian Processes, Regression Trees, Ensemble Boosting and Linear Regression. The analysis of the day-ahead energy prediction demonstrates that different prediction methods present significantly different levels of accuracy in the case of a challenging dataset that comprises an interesting mix of consumers, wind and solar generation. The results show that Multi Layer Perceptrons outperform all the eight methods used as a benchmark in this study.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/isgteurope.2017.8260289

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • ML has the potential to greatly speed up building energy demand computations by ignoring physical knowledge, incorporating it, or learning surrogate models.

    “ML has the potential to speed up these computations greatly, either by ignoring physical knowledge of the building entirely [452,617], by incorporating it into the computation [195], or by learning to approximate the physical model to reduce the need for expensive simulation (surrogate models) [274].”

    From Tackling climate change with machine learning (2023) · cites this paper as [617]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 35 · Cited by 118

Authors
Paterakis, N. G., Mocanu, E., Gibescu, M., Stappers, B., & van Alst, W.
Affiliations
Eindhoven University of Technology (NL)
Venue
2017 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference Europe (ISGT-Europe)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2017-09
Pages
1-6
OpenAlex
W2783038087
Cited by
118
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 5
FWCI
10.06
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Europe (publishedVersion)
  • TU/e Research Portal (publishedVersion)
  • TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Energy Load and Power Forecasting
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Smart Grid Energy Management
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Solar Radiation and Photovoltaics
Keywords
deep learning, multilayer perceptron, support vector machine, Gaussian processes, regression trees, ensemble boosting, wind and solar generation, benchmark comparison

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review