Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Enhanced N-BEATS for Mid-Term Electricity Demand Forecasting

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read An enhanced N-BEATS architecture with a hybrid pinball-MAPE/nMSE loss and block-level destandardization achieves the lowest mid-term electricity load forecast errors across 35 European countries.

desk verdict A modest, honestly reported N-BEATS variant whose main comparison leans on baseline numbers inherited from the authors' prior paper; worth refereeing, but the authors need to re-run the baselines. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02722 v1 pith:MKQORXLI submitted 2024-12-02 cs.LG cs.AI

Mateusz Kasprzyk , Pawe{l} Pe{l}ka , Boris N. Oreshkin , Grzegorz Dudek This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords N-BEATSmid-termloadforecastingelectricitydemanddeeplearningneuralnetworkspinballlossnormalizedMSEtimeseries
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a modified N-BEATS network, called N-BEATS*, gives better mid-term electricity load forecasts than the original N-BEATS and than every statistical, machine-learning, and hybrid baseline tested. The two modifications are a loss function that adds variance-normalized MSE to pinball-MAPE, and a block-level destandardization step that makes each block predict standardized forecast and backcast vectors. On monthly demand from 35 European countries with 2014 as the test year, N-BEATS* reports the lowest MedAPE (2.20%), MAPE (3.44%), RMSE (304), and interquartile error spread, with a Diebold–Mariano statistic of -3.05 against N-BEATS. The practical significance is that a univariate, preprocessing-free model could serve as a reliable mid-term forecasting component for grid planning across many countries at once.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the N-BEATS* block stack, an extension of the original N-BEATS architecture in which each block contains fully connected layers, a fork into forecast and backcast paths, and a new destandardization step: block outputs are rescaled by the input series' standard deviation and recentered by its mean, so the network learns shape rather than level and variance. The second mechanism is the composite loss $L(y,\hat y,\tau)=\mathrm{pMAPE}(y,\hat y,\tau)+\lambda\,\mathrm{nMSE}(y,\hat y)$, where $\mathrm{pMAPE}$ is the pinball form of MAPE (with $\tau$ controlling bias and enabling quantile forecasts) and $\mathrm{nMSE}$ divides the squared error of each target by its variance, making the L2 term scale-free and equal to 1 for a mean-based baseline. These mechanisms allow one global model trained across heterogeneous country series to produce accurate, low-dispersion forecasts without explicit detrending or deseasonalization.

What would settle it

A head-to-head replication that reruns N-BEATS and N-BEATS* under one identical protocol on the same 35-country data and 2014 test year would settle it: if the MAPE gap disappears or the Diebold–Mariano statistic fails to fall below -2.576, the superiority claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that N-BEATS* outperforms its predecessor N-BEATS and all benchmark models on mid-term load forecasting, and that the gains come specifically from its two architectural and objective-function modifications. In the model's own terms, destandardizing the forecast and backcast predictions inside each block makes the network solve simpler, scale-free tasks across heterogeneous country series, while the composite loss $\mathrm{pMAPE}(y,\hat y,\tau) + \lambda\,\mathrm{nMSE}(y,\hat y)$ balances bias control with heavy-error suppression. Across 35 countries with a 12-month test year, N-BEATS* attains the best MedAPE, MAPE, RMSE, and IQR APE, improves MAPE by about 9% over N-BEATS, and is the only tested model with a positive mean percentage error (0.56%), indicating a mild underprediction tendency rather than systematic overprediction. The ablation study shows that removing the normalized MSE term or its variance normalization degrades accuracy most, which the paper reads as evidence that the loss reweighting, not the architecture alone, drives the improvement.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands on the assumption that the N-BEATS baseline numbers taken from the earlier study [21] were obtained under the same data split, trial count, ensemble configuration, and hyperparameter protocol as N-BEATS*; if those setups differed, the reported gain could come from the procedure rather than the model changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Deployment becomes simpler: N-BEATS* needs only the historical demand series as input, so utilities can forecast a full year ahead without collecting weather or economic covariates.
  • The pinball parameter $\tau$ gives operators a direct dial to shift forecasts toward over- or underprediction, matching the asymmetry of their error costs.
  • The ablation points to the loss design, especially variance-normalized L2, as the main accuracy driver; future work should concentrate on loss refinements before changing the network topology.
  • Because the model trains globally on 35 series, adding a new country is a matter of retraining the shared model, not building a per-series forecaster.
  • The ability to output quantiles through the pinball component means the same architecture could produce probabilistic mid-term forecasts, not just point predictions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The destandardization mechanism is transferable: any global deep forecaster facing heterogeneous series could adopt it, so the architecture change may benefit retail, traffic, or water-demand forecasting without the electricity-specific loss.
  • The evaluation covers a single test year (2014); a rolling-origin re-test over several years would reveal whether N-BEATS*' edge persists through different economic and weather regimes.
  • The reported positive MPE (0.56%) is tied to the chosen $\tau=0.35$; tuning $\tau$ per country or per season could reduce bias further than the fixed global value used here.
  • Because the model is trained on all countries jointly, countries with short histories may benefit more from cross-learning; a per-country sample-size analysis could identify where the gain concentrates.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes N-BEATS*, a modification of N-BEATS for mid-term electricity load forecasting. Two changes are introduced: (i) a hybrid loss combining pinball-MAPE with variance-normalized MSE, and (ii) a destandardization step in each block that maps block forecasts and backcasts back to the level and scale of the block input. The model is trained globally on monthly ENTSO-E data from 35 European countries and evaluated on 2014 with 2013 as validation. The authors report that N-BEATS* achieves the lowest MAPE (3.44), RMSE (304), and IQR APE (3.29) among all methods, with a Diebold-Mariano statistic of -3.05 against N-BEATS, and they provide an ablation of the main components.

Significance. If the empirical claims are fully supported, the contribution is a modest but useful engineering improvement to an established architecture: a 9% average MAPE reduction over the predecessor on a 35-country benchmark, together with a clean ablation showing that the loss term and its variance normalization matter most. The modifications are simple and well motivated, the experimental design has a sensible temporal split, and the comparison against the direct predecessor uses a Diebold-Mariano test. The paper is weaker as a stand-alone benchmark because the baseline numbers and the significance of N-BEATS over those baselines are imported from the authors' prior work [21] rather than re-established under the current protocol; this weakens the 'superior to all baselines' headline until the protocols are shown to be identical or the baselines are re-run.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2/4.3, Table 2] The baseline comparison is not self-contained. The N-BEATS baseline and all other baseline metrics are taken from [21] under a protocol described only as 'similar' (Section 4.3), while Section 4.2 fixes a specific protocol for N-BEATS* (lookback 12, 100 trials, 64-model ensembles from a 1024-model pool, retraining on train+validation after hyperparameter selection). If any of those settings differed for the baselines, the reported improvement of N-BEATS* over N-BEATS (MAPE 3.78 vs 3.44; DM -3.05) could be an artifact of protocol change rather than of the two proposed modifications. Please re-run N-BEATS and, ideally, all baselines under the exact N-BEATS* evaluation protocol, or show explicitly that the protocol in [21] is identical.
  2. [Section 4.5] The Diebold-Mariano evidence is reported only as the single statistic -3.05 against N-BEATS, and the claim that N-BEATS* outperforms every baseline relies on the transitive argument from [21]. The paper should specify the DM test construction (what constitutes an observation, the loss differential, the variance estimator, and how dependence among the 35 countries is handled) and provide direct DM tests against the other baselines under the current protocol, or the 'best among all baselines' claim should be softened accordingly.
  3. [Sections 4.5-4.6, Tables 2-3] Metrics are reported as point estimates without measures of variability even though Section 4.2 states that outcomes are averaged over 100 trials. This makes it impossible to judge whether small differences (e.g., IQR APE 3.29 vs 3.30, or the ablation gaps in Table 3) are meaningful. Add confidence intervals or standard deviations across trials and/or countries for the main metrics, and use significance tests for the ablation comparisons.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (1)] The notation 'Linear(h^(m))' is used in both the backcast and forecast lines, but in practice these should be two separate linear layers; please clarify the notation.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eq. (2)] Please define Var(y_i) explicitly: is it the variance of the target vector for sample i over the forecast horizon, and is a sample or population variance used?
  3. [Section 4.6] The noDestd and noReLU variant descriptions refer to 'Fig. 1' for the Mean/Std and ReLU components; these references should be to Fig. 2.
  4. [Section 4.2/4.3] Please clarify whether the baselines from [21] also used the merged train+validation retraining step; if not, the final-model comparison is not apples-to-apples.
  5. [Section 4.5] The phrase 'reduces MAPE by up to 9%' is imprecise: the average reduction is about 9% (3.78 to 3.44), while the largest country-level reduction is 38.5%; please state both values explicitly.
  6. [Table 2] The 'lowest IQR APE' claim rests on a 0.01 percentage-point difference from N-BEATS (3.29 vs 3.30); please qualify this as not materially different unless a significance test supports it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported gains are measured on a held-out test set; the only load-bearing self-citation is the prior N-BEATS baseline evidence, which is external and not definitionally forced.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical claim—that N-BEATS* achieves lower MAPE/RMSE than N-BEATS and other baselines—rests on a held-out 2014 test set, with hyperparameters (τ, λ, architecture choices) selected on the 2013 validation set. Equations (1)–(3) define the model and loss; none of these equations contains the test-set metrics or is fitted to them. The pinball-MAPE/nMSE loss is a training objective, not a renamed evaluation metric, and the test MAPE is computed from actual predictions on unseen data. The destandardization step uses only statistics of the input window, so it does not leak target information. The only potentially load-bearing self-citation is the use of [21] for the N-BEATS baseline configuration and for the prior significance result that N-BEATS beats each baseline. This is external published evidence, not a definitional equivalence; the direct N-BEATS* vs N-BEATS comparison is tested here (DM = −3.05). The transitive claim against all baselines would be stronger if the baseline protocols were shown to be identical, and the paper's word 'similar' flags this as a comparability/correctness risk rather than circularity. Consistent with the rules, no step reduces by construction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on assumptions about data quality, comparability of baseline results from prior work, and the validity of the statistical significance test. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Pinball quantile tau = 0.35
    Selected from grid [0.3, 0.35, ..., 0.6] on validation set. Controls asymmetry of pinball-MAPE loss and thus forecast bias.
  • nMSE weight lambda = 0.35
    Selected from grid [0.3, 0.35, ..., 0.6] on validation set. Balances pMAPE and normalized MSE terms in loss function.
  • Architecture hyperparameters (FC width, number of blocks, FC layers, lookback, sharing) = width=512, blocks=6, layers=3, sharing=True, lookback=12
    Tuned on validation grid. These define model capacity and input window; the central performance claims depend on them.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The ENTSO-E monthly electricity consumption data for 35 European countries is accurate and comparable across countries.
    The model and all comparisons rely on this dataset; the paper does not validate data quality or consistency.
  • domain assumption The baseline model results, especially N-BEATS from [21], are reproducible and were obtained under an evaluation protocol comparable to the one used for N-BEATS*.
    The paper uses [21] for baseline hyperparameters and prior significance claims without re-running the baselines.
  • domain assumption The Diebold-Mariano test assumptions (stationary, weakly dependent loss differential series) hold for the monthly forecast errors.
    The test statistic is cited as -3.05, but the loss series construction and any autocorrelation corrections are not described.
  • standard math Standard deep learning optimization assumptions (Adam converges, random initialization and batch sampling give valid ensembles).
    The training relies on standard empirical deep learning practice; no convergence guarantees are provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The architecture as described in Eq. (1), including the destandardization using mean and std of the input vector, is the one implemented.
    The equations are ambiguous (same 'Linear' notation for backcast and forecast), so the reader must assume the implementation matches the description.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhanced N-BEATS for Mid-Term Electricity Demand Forecasting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MKQORXLI

@misc{pith2026241202722,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhanced N-BEATS for Mid-Term Electricity Demand Forecasting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MKQORXLI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02722}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents an enhanced N-BEATS model, N-BEATS*, for improved mid-term electricity load forecasting (MTLF). Building on the strengths of the original N-BEATS architecture, which excels in handling complex time series data without requiring preprocessing or domain-specific knowledge, N-BEATS* introduces two key modifications. (1) A novel loss function -- combining pinball loss based on MAPE with normalized MSE, the new loss function allows for a more balanced approach by capturing both L1 and L2 loss terms. (2) A modified block architecture -- the internal structure of the N-BEATS blocks is adjusted by introducing a destandardization component to harmonize the processing of different time series, leading to more efficient and less complex forecasting tasks. Evaluated on real-world monthly electricity consumption data from 35 European countries, N-BEATS* demonstrates superior performance compared to its predecessor and other established forecasting methods, including statistical, machine learning, and hybrid models. N-BEATS* achieves the lowest MAPE and RMSE, while also exhibiting the lowest dispersion in forecast errors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02722 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of monthly electricity demand time series. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Architecture of the N-BEATS* model. 3.1. N-BEATS* Architecture The N-BEATS* model is illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example loss functions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Data processing by N-BEATS – example showing test data for Austria. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Note that the forecasts for Great Britain (GB) are underestimated, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: MAPE for individual countries. produces positively biased forecasts, indicating a tendency for underpredic￾tion, whereas all other models tend to overpredict. N-BEATS* achieves one of the lowest biases, with MPE of 0.56%, closely following N-BEATS, which has MPE of −0.…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Forecasts for selected countries. noDestd N-BEATS* without the destandardization of the forecast and backcast outputs (removal of the Mean and Std components, as depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Histograms of MPE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Explainability-Driven Feature Engineering for Mid-Term Electricity Load Forecasting in ERCOT's SCENT Region

    cs.LG 2025-07 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    SHAP-guided feature engineering appeared to cut peak-hour load forecast error by 3 to 6 times, but the key feature contains the target load itself, so the improvement is not evidence of forecasting skill.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [21]

    N-beats neural network for mid-term electricity load forecasting

    Oreshkin, B.N., Dudek, G., Pe lka, P., Turkina, E., 2021. N-beats neural network for mid-term electricity load forecasting. Applied En- ergy 293, 116918. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0306261921003986, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. apenergy.2021.116918

    arXiv 2021

  2. [1]

    Potential of three variant machine-learning models for forecasting district level medium-term and long-term energy demand in smart grid environment

    Ahmad, T., Chen, H., 2018. Potential of three variant machine-learning models for forecasting district level medium-term and long-term energy demand in smart grid environment. Energy 160, 1008–1020. doi: 10. 1016/j.energy.2018.07.084

    work page 2018

  3. [2]

    Relationships be- tween meteorological variables and monthly electricity demand

    Apadula, F., Bassini, A., Elli, A., Scapin, S., 2012. Relationships be- tween meteorological variables and monthly electricity demand. Applied Energy 98, 346–356

    work page 2012

  4. [3]

    Incorporat- ing air temperature into mid-term electricity load forecasting mod- els using time-series regressions and neural networks

    Bashiri Behmiri, N., Fezzi, C., Ravazzolo, F., 2023. Incorporat- ing air temperature into mid-term electricity load forecasting mod- els using time-series regressions and neural networks. Energy 278, 127831. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0360544223012252, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy. 2023.127831

    arXiv 2023

  5. [4]

    Explainability and interpretability in electric load forecasting using machine learning techniques – a review

    Baur, L., Ditschuneit, K., Schambach, M., Kaymakci, C., Wollmann, T., Sauer, A., 2024. Explainability and interpretability in electric load forecasting using machine learning techniques – a review. Energy and AI 16, 100358. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ 23 article/pii/S2666546824000247, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. egyai.2024.100358

    arXiv 2024

  6. [5]

    Empirical mode decomposition based deep learning for electricity demand forecasting

    Bedi, J., Toshniwal, D., 2018. Empirical mode decomposition based deep learning for electricity demand forecasting. IEEE Access 6, 49144– 49156. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2867681

    work page arXiv 2018

  7. [6]

    Monthly electricity demand forecasting based on a weighted evolving fuzzy neural network approach

    Chang, P.C., Fan, C.Y., Lin, J.J., 2011. Monthly electricity demand forecasting based on a weighted evolving fuzzy neural network approach. International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 33, 17–27. doi:10.1016/j.ijepes.2010.08.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijepes.2010.08.008 2011

  8. [7]

    A multivariate ensemble learning method for medium-term energy forecasting

    Charalampos, M.L., Karanikola, A., Kotsiantis, S., 2023. A multivariate ensemble learning method for medium-term energy forecasting. Neural Computing and Applications 35, 21479–21497

    work page 2023

Show all 32 references
  1. [8]

    Analyzing the impact of weather variables on monthly electricity demand

    Ching-Lai Hor, Watson, S.J., Majithia, S., 2005. Analyzing the impact of weather variables on monthly electricity demand. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 20, 2078–2085

    2005

  2. [9]

    Are shocks to electricity consumption transitory or permanent? sub-national evidence from turkey

    Dogan, E., 2016. Are shocks to electricity consumption transitory or permanent? sub-national evidence from turkey. Utilities Policy 41, 77– 84

    2016

  3. [10]

    Pattern similarity-based machine learning methods for mid-term load forecasting: A comparative study

    Dudek, G., Pe lka, P., 2021. Pattern similarity-based machine learning methods for mid-term load forecasting: A comparative study. Applied Soft Computing 104, 107223. URL: https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568494621001460, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc....

    2021

  4. [11]

    3ETS+RD-LSTM: A new hybrid model for electrical energy consumption forecasting, in: Yang, H., Pa- supa, K., Leung, A.C.S., Kwok, J.T., Chan, J.H., King, I

    Dudek, G., Pe lka, P., Smyl, S., 2020. 3ETS+RD-LSTM: A new hybrid model for electrical energy consumption forecasting, in: Yang, H., Pa- supa, K., Leung, A.C.S., Kwok, J.T., Chan, J.H., King, I. (Eds.), Neural Information Processing, Springer International Publishing, Cham. pp...

    2020

  5. [12]

    A hybrid residual dilated LSTM and exponential smoothing model for midterm electric load forecast- ing

    Dudek, G., Pe lka, P., Smyl, S., 2021. A hybrid residual dilated LSTM and exponential smoothing model for midterm electric load forecast- ing. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , 1–13doi:10.1109/TNNLS.2020.3046629. 24

    2021

  6. [13]

    Medium term system load forecasting with a dynamic artificial neural network model

    Ghiassi, M., Zimbra, D.K., Saidane, H., 2006. Medium term system load forecasting with a dynamic artificial neural network model. Electric Power Systems Research 76, 302–316

    2006

  7. [14]

    Gupta, A., Kumar, A., 2020. Mid term daily load forecasting using arima, wavelet-arima and machine learning, in: 2020 IEEE International Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering and 2020 IEEE Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Europe (EEEIC / ICPS Eu- rope), p...

    2020

  8. [15]

    Forecasting: Principles and Practice

    Hyndman, R., Athanasopoulos, G., 2018. Forecasting: Principles and Practice. 2nd ed., OTexts, Australia

    2018

  9. [16]

    Prob- abilistic forecasting method for mid-term hourly load time series based on an improved temporal fusion transformer model

    Li, D., Tan, Y., Zhang, Y., Miao, S., He, S., 2023a. Prob- abilistic forecasting method for mid-term hourly load time series based on an improved temporal fusion transformer model. In- ternational Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 146, 108743. URL: https://www.sci...

  10. [17]

    Mid-long term load forecasting model based on support vector machine optimized by improved sparrow search algorithm

    Li, J., Lei, Y., Yang, S., 2022. Mid-long term load forecasting model based on support vector machine optimized by improved sparrow search algorithm. Energy Reports 8, 491–497. URL: https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352484722004358, doi:https://doi.org/10.10...

    2022 doi

  11. [18]

    Combination of manifold learning and deep learning algorithms for mid-term electrical load forecasting

    Li, J., Wei, S., Dai, W., 2023b. Combination of manifold learning and deep learning algorithms for mid-term electrical load forecasting. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 34, 2584–2593. doi:10.1109/TNNLS.2021.3106968

  12. [19]

    Enhancing the locality and breaking the memory bottleneck of Trans- former on time series forecasting, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32, pp

    Li, S., Jin, X., Xuan, Y., Zhou, X., Chen, W., Wang, Y.X., et al., 2019. Enhancing the locality and breaking the memory bottleneck of Trans- former on time series forecasting, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32, pp. 5243–5253

    2019

  13. [20]

    N-BEATS: Neural basis expansion analysis for interpretable time series forecasting, in: ICLR

    Oreshkin, B.N., Carpov, D., Chapados, N., Bengio, Y., 2020. N-BEATS: Neural basis expansion analysis for interpretable time series forecasting, in: ICLR. 25

    2020

  14. [22]

    Analysis and forecasting of monthly electricity de- mand time series using pattern-based statistical methods

    Pe lka, P., 2023. Analysis and forecasting of monthly electricity de- mand time series using pattern-based statistical methods. Energies

    2023

  15. [23]

    URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/2/827, doi:10.3390/ en16020827

    1996

  16. [24]

    Pe lka, P., Dudek, G., 2018. Neuro-fuzzy system for medium-term elec- tric energy demand forecasting, in: Information Systems Architecture and Technology: Proceedings of 38th International Conference on In- formation Systems Architecture and Technology – ISAT 2017, Springer In...

    2018

  17. [25]

    Pattern-based forecasting monthly electricity demand using multilayer perceptron, in: Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing, Springer International Publishing, Cham

    Pe lka, P., Dudek, G., 2019. Pattern-based forecasting monthly electricity demand using multilayer perceptron, in: Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing, Springer International Publishing, Cham. pp. 663–672

    2019

  18. [26]

    Pattern-based long short-term memory for mid-term electrical load forecasting, in: 2020 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), pp

    Pe lka, P., Dudek, G., 2020. Pattern-based long short-term memory for mid-term electrical load forecasting, in: 2020 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), pp. 1–8

    2020

  19. [27]

    A novel two-stage framework for mid-term electric load forecasting

    Sharma, A., Jain, S.K., 2024. A novel two-stage framework for mid-term electric load forecasting. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 20, 247–255. doi: 10.1109/TII.2023.3259445

    2024

  20. [28]

    Any-quantile probabilistic forecasting of short-term electricity demand

    Smyl, S., Oreshkin, B.N., Pe lka, P., Dudek, G., 2024. Any-quantile probabilistic forecasting of short-term electricity demand. URL: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2404.17451, arXiv:2404.17451

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Energy models for demand forecast- ing—a review

    Suganthi, L., Samuel, A., 2012. Energy models for demand forecast- ing—a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16, 1223–

    2012

  22. [30]

    Multi- step short-term power consumption forecasting with a hybrid deep learn- ing strategy

    Yan, K., Wang, X., Du, Y., Jin, N., Huang, H., Zhou, H., 2018. Multi- step short-term power consumption forecasting with a hybrid deep learn- ing strategy. Energies 11, 3089. doi: 10.3390/en11113089. 27

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    Attention is all you need, in: Proceedings of 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2017), pp

    Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A.N., et al., 2017. Attention is all you need, in: Proceedings of 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2017), pp. 5998–6008. 26

    2017

  24. [1240]

    doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2011.08.014

    2011 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.