Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 67 references

Data Model Design for Explainable Machine Learning-based Electricity Applications

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A three-way feature taxonomy lifts household load forecasts by up to 4.7 percentage points.

desk verdict Useful taxonomy and honest three-dataset effort, but the headline MPE gains and SHAP shares are not defensible until the feature-leakage protocol is clarified and the internal numbers are reconciled. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23607 v1 pith:RNNFWCHX submitted 2025-05-29 cs.LG

Carolina Fortuna , Gregor Cerar , Blaz Bertalanic , Andrej Campa , Mihael Mohorcic This is my paper
classification cs.LG
keywords electricityforecastingfeaturetaxonomyexplainablemachinelearningimportanceSHAPsmartmeterdatabehavioralfeaturescontextual
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 argues that a structured taxonomy of energy data—splitting features into domain-specific measurements, contextual signals such as weather and building properties, and behavioral signals such as work schedules and cooking habits—should guide data model design for machine learning in electricity applications. The authors try to establish that building features this way materially improves hour-ahead household electricity forecasting compared with feeding a model raw consumption time series. On three open datasets, taxonomy-guided feature engineering improves mean percentage error by roughly 3.73, 4.70, and 4.30 percentage points for a gradient-boosted tree model. A SHAP-based importance analysis adds that domain-specific features carry most of the predictive weight (65.5–83.1 percent), with contextual features contributing 10.8–23.6 percent and behavioral features 6.1–13.2 percent. If true, the taxonomy gives practitioners a repeatable checklist for designing data models rather than relying on ad hoc feature selection.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a first-level taxonomy that assigns every candidate input to one of three groups: domain-specific features (direct electrical measurements plus derived lags and rolling statistics), contextual features (weather, time, geolocation, building properties), and behavioral features (work schedules, cooking windows, hygiene habits, encoded social activities). The taxonomy guides a feature-engineering pipeline that converts raw smart-meter series into tabular inputs, and SHAP Shapley-value attributions are used to quantify each group's contribution. The empirical work is carried by this pipeline plus the comparison protocol: an 80:20 chronological split, five algorithms, and MPE and MSE evaluation on three open datasets.

What would settle it

Re-run the XGB experiments on UCI Household and REFIT with each rolling average and lag feature recomputed inside a strictly expanding training window, so every feature at time t uses only observations before t; if the roughly 4.7 and 4.3 percentage-point MPE gains over raw time series largely disappear, the improvement was driven by look-ahead rather than by the taxonomy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the choice of which data to collect and engineer is itself a performance lever for explainable load forecasting. Guided by a three-category taxonomy (domain-specific, contextual, behavioral), the authors construct feature sets for three public household datasets and compare regression and time-series algorithms against the same models trained on raw consumption only. Feature engineering brings the best model's mean percentage error down by about 3.73 percentage points on HUE, 4.70 on UCI Household, and 4.30 on REFIT, and the full feature set usually outperforms any single category or pair. Feature importance analysis attributes most predictive contribution to domain-specific features, while showing that sub-metered appliance data improves the extraction of behavioral patterns and thereby forecasting accuracy.

Load-bearing premise

The reported gains assume that lag and rolling statistics such as consumption 23 and 24 hours ago are computed only from the training portion of each household's time series, so no test-period information enters the model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Adding contextual and behavioral features to engineered domain features improves forecasts by up to 5 percent MSE and up to 3 percent MPE; combining all three groups yields up to 6 percent MSE and 23 percent MPE improvement over domain features alone.
  • Sub-metering data matters: removing it costs up to 13 percent MSE and 3 percent MPE in accuracy, so investing in sub-metering or non-intrusive load monitoring is a concrete route to better forecasting.
  • Gradient-boosted tree models fit taxonomy-derived tabular features better than time-series-native algorithms such as Prophet and N-BEATS, reinforcing competition evidence that preprocessing plus gradient-boosted ensembles performs best.
  • Behavioral features gain predictive value when richer sub-meter data is available, suggesting that future forecasting models will benefit from more granular household activity data.
  • The taxonomy can be encoded with semantic vocabularies for interoperability, pointing toward feature stores and database-like systems that reuse the same feature design across energy applications.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct testable extension is to apply the same taxonomy-driven feature grouping to other energy tasks, such as photovoltaic generation forecasting or anomaly detection; if the taxonomy is general, the same category-level importance ordering should reappear.
  • The SHAP contribution percentages may partly reflect feature-count imbalance—UCI Household has 63 domain features versus 9 contextual ones—so a per-feature normalized attribution would separate signal strength from sheer input count.
  • Because contextual features gain importance when sub-meter-derived behavioral features are removed, one implied design strategy is to enrich contextual metadata in households where appliance-level data is unavailable.
  • The headline gains are reported on MPE; the tables show smaller relative improvements on MSE, so the practical benefit of the taxonomy is metric-dependent and should be weighed against the cost of collecting extra data.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a three-category taxonomy (domain-specific, contextual, behavioral) for electricity data features and uses it to engineer features for hour-ahead household electricity forecasting. Experiments on three public datasets (HUE, UCI Household, REFIT) with five machine learning models report that taxonomy-guided feature engineering improves mean percentage error (MPE) by approximately 3.73, 4.70, and 4.30 percentage points over raw time series, and a SHAP analysis attributes the largest contribution to domain-specific features (65.5%–83.1%).

Significance. If the reported results are reproducible, the taxonomy offers a practical, application-oriented guide for feature engineering and model selection in energy forecasting, and the SHAP-based feature-group analysis provides interpretability of model inputs. The study uses openly available datasets and transparent tabular results, which is a strength. However, the central quantitative claims—both the MPE gains and the SHAP shares—are sensitive to the feature-construction pipeline and to internal consistency of the reported numbers; these issues need to be resolved before the claims can be fully credited.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, Table 2] The manuscript does not state whether the rolling statistics (rolling average and standard deviation), lag features (consumption {23,24} hours ago, consumption a week ago), and 'yesterday consumption ratio/median' are computed using only data available at the forecast time (e.g., expanding windows on the training portion) or on the full series before the 80:20 split. If these features are computed with a centered window or using test-period data, the train/test separation is violated, and the headline MPE improvements in Tables 3–5 (row 8 vs row 1) and the SHAP contributions in Table 6 would be inflated. This is load-bearing because the abstract and Section 1 quantify the claimed benefit in percentage points. The authors must specify the feature-construction procedure and demonstrate that it is causal.
  2. [Section 5.2, Table 6] The SHAP group percentages reported in the text (e.g., HUE domain 65.5%, UCI domain 83.1%, REFIT domain 68.9%; contextual 23.6%, 10.8%, 17.9%; behavioral 10.9%, 6.1%, 13.2%) do not match the values in Table 6 (HUE domain 66.5%, contextual 23.0%, behavioral 10.5%; UCI domain 83.8%, contextual 9.9%, behavioral 6.3%; REFIT domain 68.2%, contextual 17.0%, behavioral 14.8%). The abstract's ranges (65.5%–83.1% for domain) also exclude the table's 83.8% for UCI. These inconsistencies undermine the reliability of the feature-importance analysis and must be reconciled before publication.
  3. [Section 5.1, Tables 3–5] The claimed improvements of approximately 3.73, 4.70, and 4.30 percentage points compare row 8 (all feature groups) with row 1 (raw data only). Because row 1 contains only raw measurements while row 8 includes the full taxonomy-engineered feature set, the comparison conflates the effect of feature engineering with the effect of increasing input dimensionality. The paper should explicitly state that the baseline is raw univariate time series and discuss whether the improvement is due to the taxonomy guidance or simply to adding more variables.
  4. [Abstract, Section 3, Section 5] The manuscript says the taxonomy is 'validated' by the forecasting experiments, but the taxonomy itself is defined a priori and the experiments do not compare it against alternative feature groupings or a random baseline. The SHAP analysis is a post hoc explanation of models trained on the taxonomy-derived features, not a statistical test of the taxonomy's structure. The authors should soften the validation claim to 'demonstration' or add a control experiment (e.g., random feature grouping of equal size) to support the claim that the taxonomy specifically, rather than any feature set, is responsible for the improvements.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 1 and Section 4.1] There are several typos, including 'we study of the effect' in the abstract, 'such as such as' in Section 4.1, and 'feature feature-engineered' in the Conclusions; these should be corrected.
  2. [Equation (1)] The MPE formula in Equation (1) is not the standard mean percentage error; the paper should clarify why the maximum of the absolute values is used in the denominator and define the metric precisely, as readers may otherwise misinterpret the reported values.
  3. [Table 6] The column heading 'cum. rel. SHAP contribution' is unclear; spell out 'cumulative relative SHAP contribution' and state whether the three group percentages sum to 100% for each dataset.
  4. [Section 6] The Conclusions state 'up to 6% MSE and up to 23% MPE improvement over using only feature-engineered domain-specific features,' which is a different baseline than the 3.73–4.30 percentage-point improvements over raw data; these two comparisons should be explicitly distinguished to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the taxonomy is an a priori grouping, and the reported gains and SHAP shares are empirical measurements rather than consequences of the taxonomy by construction.

full rationale

The paper proposes a three-way taxonomy (domain, contextual, behavioral) before the experiments and then uses it to organize feature engineering. The central quantitative claims, namely MPE improvements of about 3.73, 4.70, and 4.30 percentage points from using all feature groups versus raw series, and the SHAP group shares, are measured outcomes of trained models on test splits. Nothing in the taxonomy definitions forces these numbers: the grouping could have turned out useless or harmful, and the experiments would have reported that. In particular, the comparison of row 8 (all features) with row 1 (raw data) in Tables 3-5 is an empirical ablation, not an identity. The SHAP analysis is a post hoc explanation of the fitted models and is not used to define the taxonomy or to construct the features, so no fitted-input-renamed-as-prediction pattern occurs. The only mild rhetorical overreach is the phrase 'validate the effectiveness of the proposed taxonomy,' since the experiments validate a particular set of engineered features rather than the taxonomy as a formal object; this is a framing issue, not a circular derivation. Concerns about temporal leakage in rolling and lag feature construction would be a correctness or reproducibility issue, not a circularity issue: leakage would bias the empirical estimates but would not make the claims true by definition. Self-citations, e.g., references [1] and [4], appear in general context statements and are not load-bearing for the forecasting or SHAP results. Therefore the paper is self-contained with respect to the circularity definitions used here.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The main added structure is the taxonomy itself and the hand-crafted feature definitions. The free parameters that matter are the time-window choices for behavioral features; the central claim does not depend on a fitted numerical constant, but it does depend on the assumption that these feature categories carry predictive signal.

free parameters (1)
  • Hand-chosen activity time windows (breakfast 6-9, lunch 11-15, dinner 18-21, work schedule 9-17, free time 17-22…
    These discretized time windows are chosen by the authors to define behavioral features. They are not fitted to the data, but they are arbitrary and affect the behavioral feature set and, consequently, the reported importance and accuracy numbers.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Electricity consumption is causally influenced by contextual and behavioral factors such as weather, building properties, and occupant behavior.
    The entire taxonomy and feature set rely on this imported assumption. The paper cites prior studies [25,26,27] for support, but the assumption is not derived within the paper and is not tested against a null model with no such features.
  • standard math SHAP values provide an unbiased and meaningful measure of individual feature contribution for the trained models.
    The paper relies on the standard mathematical properties of Shapley values as implemented in SHAP, citing [66,67]. This is a background assumption about the correctness of the explainability method.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Data Model Design for Explainable Machine Learning-based Electricity Applications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RNNFWCHX

@misc{pith2026250523607,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Data Model Design for Explainable Machine Learning-based Electricity Applications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RNNFWCHX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23607}
}
read the original abstract

The transition from traditional power grids to smart grids, significant increase in the use of renewable energy sources, and soaring electricity prices has triggered a digital transformation of the energy infrastructure that enables new, data driven, applications often supported by machine learning models. However, the majority of the developed machine learning models rely on univariate data. To date, a structured study considering the role meta-data and additional measurements resulting in multivariate data is missing. In this paper we propose a taxonomy that identifies and structures various types of data related to energy applications. The taxonomy can be used to guide application specific data model development for training machine learning models. Focusing on a household electricity forecasting application, we validate the effectiveness of the proposed taxonomy in guiding the selection of the features for various types of models. As such, we study of the effect of domain, contextual and behavioral features on the forecasting accuracy of four interpretable machine learning techniques and three openly available datasets. Finally, using a feature importance techniques, we explain individual feature contributions to the forecasting accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23607 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A taxonomy of features relevant for energy application data model design. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Fortuna, H

    C. Fortuna, H. Yetgin, M. Mohorcic, Ai-enabled life cycle automation of smart infrastructures, Industrial Electronics Magazine (2022).doi: 10.1109/MIE.2022.3165673

    work page arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Dileep, A survey on smart grid technologies and applications, Renew- able energy 146 (2020) 2589–2625

    G. Dileep, A survey on smart grid technologies and applications, Renew- able energy 146 (2020) 2589–2625

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Chuang, C.-C

    H.-J. Chuang, C.-C. Wang, L.-T. Chao, H.-M. Chou, T.-I. Chien, C.-Y . Chuang, Monitoring the daily life of the elderly using the energy manage- ment system, in: Innovation in Design, Communication and Engineering, CRC Press, 2020, pp. 101–106

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Cerar, J

    G. Cerar, J. Hribar, Machine Learning Operations Model Store: Optimiz- ing Model Selection for AI as a Service, in: 2023 International Balkan Conference on Communications and Networking (BalkanCom), 2023, pp. 1–5.doi:10.1109/BalkanCom58402.2023.10167931

    work page arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Y . Wang, Q. Chen, T. Hong, C. Kang, Review of smart meter data analyt- ics: Applications, methodologies, and challenges, IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid 10 (3) (2018) 3125–3148

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    H. Quan, A. Khosravi, D. Yang, D. Srinivasan, A survey of computa- tional intelligence techniques for wind power uncertainty quantification in smart grids, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Sys- tems 31 (11) (2020) 4582–4599.doi:10.1109/TNNLS.2019.2956195

    work page arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Himeur, A

    Y . Himeur, A. Alsalemi, F. Bensaali, A. Amira, Building power con- sumption datasets: Survey, taxonomy and future directions, Energy and Buildings 227 (2020) 110404.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. enbuild.2020.110404. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S037877882030815X

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    A. A. Al-Shargabi, A. Almhafdy, D. M. Ibrahim, M. Alghieth, F. Chi- clana, Buildings’ energy consumption prediction models based on build- ings’ characteristics: Research trends, taxonomy, and performance mea- sures, Journal of Building Engineering 54 (2022) 104577

    work page 2022

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    I. K. Nti, M. Teimeh, O. Nyarko-Boateng, A. F. Adekoya, Electricity load forecasting: a systematic review, Journal of Electrical Systems and Infor- mation Technology 7 (2020) 1–19

    2020

  2. [10]

    L. Baur, K. Ditschuneit, M. Schambach, C. Kaymakci, T. Wollmann, A. Sauer, Explainability and interpretability in electric load forecasting using machine learning techniques – a review, Energy and AI 16 (2024) 100358.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyai.2024.100358. URLhttps://...

    2024

  3. [11]

    W. Kong, Z. Y . Dong, Y . Jia, D. J. Hill, Y . Xu, Y . Zhang, Short-term residential load forecasting based on lstm recurrent neural network, IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid 10 (1) (2017) 841–851

    2017

  4. [12]

    Amjady, A

    N. Amjady, A. Daraeepour, Design of input vector for day-ahead price forecasting of electricity markets, Expert Systems with Applications 36 (10) (2009) 12281–12294.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. eswa.2009.04.059. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0957417409004096

    2009 doi

  5. [13]

    X. M. Zhang, K. Grolinger, M. A. M. Capretz, L. Seewald, Forecast- ing residential energy consumption: Single household perspective, in: 2018 17th IEEE International Conference on Machine Learning and Ap- plications (ICMLA), 2018, pp. 110–117.doi:10.1109/ICMLA.2018. 00024

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    Lim, H.-J

    C.-G. Lim, H.-J. Choi, Deep learning-based analysis on monthly house- hold consumption for different electricity contracts, in: 2020 IEEE In- ternational Conference on Big Data and Smart Computing (BigComp), 2020, pp. 545–547.doi:10.1109/BigComp48618.2020.000-7

    2020

  7. [15]

    Zytek, I

    A. Zytek, I. Arnaldo, D. Liu, L. Berti-Equille, K. Veeramachaneni, The need for interpretable features: Motivation and taxonomy, SIGKDD Ex- plor. Newsl. 24 (1) (2022) 1–13.doi:10.1145/3544903.3544905. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1145/3544903.3544905

    2022

  8. [16]

    Bertoli, F

    P. Bertoli, F. Corcoglioniti, C. Di Francescomarino, M. Dragoni, C. Ghi- dini, M. Pistore, Semantic modeling and analysis of complex data-aware processes and their executions, Expert Systems with Applications 198 (2022) 116702

    2022

  9. [17]

    Daniele, F

    L. Daniele, F. d. Hartog, J. Roes, Created in close interaction with the industry: the smart appliances reference (saref) ontology, in: International Workshop Formal Ontologies Meet Industries, Springer, 2015, pp. 100– 112

    2015

  10. [18]

    Sierla, M

    S. Sierla, M. Pourakbari-Kasmaei, V . Vyatkin, A taxonomy of machine 10 learning applications for virtual power plants and home/building energy management systems, Automation in Construction 136 (2022) 104174. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104174. URLhttps://www.sc...

    2022

  11. [19]

    Djenouri, R

    D. Djenouri, R. Laidi, Y . Djenouri, I. Balasingham, Machine learning for smart building applications: Review and taxonomy, ACM Comput. Surv. 52 (2) (mar 2019).doi:10.1145/3311950. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1145/3311950

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    Charbonnier, T

    F. Charbonnier, T. Morstyn, M. D. McCulloch, Coordination of resources at the edge of the electricity grid: Systematic review and taxonomy, Ap- plied Energy 318 (2022) 119188.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.apenergy.2022.119188. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...

    2022

  13. [21]

    H. Y . Lam, G. S. K. Fung, W. K. Lee, A novel method to construct taxon- omy electrical appliances based on load signaturesof, IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics 53 (2) (2007) 653–660.doi:10.1109/TCE. 2007.381742

    2007

  14. [22]

    Ahmadi-Karvigh, B

    S. Ahmadi-Karvigh, B. Becerik-Gerber, L. Soibelman, A framework for allocating personalized appliance-level disaggregated electricity con- sumption to daily activities, Energy and Buildings 111 (2016) 337–350. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.11.029. URLhttps://www.s...

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    Sadeghianpourhamami, J

    N. Sadeghianpourhamami, J. Ruyssinck, D. Deschrijver, T. Dhaene, C. Develder, Comprehensive feature selection for appliance classifica- tion in nilm, Energy and Buildings 151 (2017) 98–106.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.06.042. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/sci...

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    P. C. Albuquerque, D. O. Cajueiro, M. D. Rossi, Machine learning mod- els for forecasting power electricity consumption using a high dimen- sional dataset, Expert Systems with Applications 187 (2022) 115917. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115917. URLhttps://www.scienc...

    2022

  17. [26]

    C. O. Adika, L. Wang, Short term energy consumption prediction using bio-inspired fuzzy systems, in: 2012 North American Power Symposium (NAPS), 2012, pp. 1–6.doi:10.1109/NAPS.2012.6336358

    2012

  18. [27]

    Parkinson, S

    T. Parkinson, S. Schiavon, R. de Dear, G. Brager, Overcooling of of- fices reveals gender inequity in thermal comfort, Scientific reports 11 (1) (2021) 1–7

    2021

  19. [28]

    W. Yu, D. An, D. Griffith, Q. Yang, G. Xu, Towards statistical modeling and machine learning based energy usage forecasting in smart grid, ACM SIGAPP Applied Computing Review 15 (1) (2015) 6–16

    2015

  20. [29]

    Fagaras, C

    R. Fagaras, C. Nichiforov, I. Stamatescu, G. Stamatescu, Evaluation of compressed residential energy forecasting models, in: 2021 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), 2021, pp. 1424–1429.doi:10.1109/SMC52423.2021.9658990

    2021

  21. [30]

    Chowdhury, M

    D. Chowdhury, M. Hasan, M. Z. Rahman Khan, Statistical features extraction from current envelopes for non- intrusive appliance load monitoring, in: 2020 SoutheastCon, 2020, pp. 1–5.doi:10.1109/ SoutheastCon44009.2020.9249667

    2020

  22. [31]

    Ouyang, X

    Z. Ouyang, X. Sun, D. Yue, Hierarchical time series feature extraction for power consumption anomaly detection, in: K. Li, Y . Xue, S. Cui, Q. Niu, Z. Yang, P. Luk (Eds.), Advanced Computational Methods in En- ergy, Power, Electric Vehicles, and Their Integration, Springer Sin...

    2017

  23. [32]

    Zhang, B

    Y . Zhang, B. Chen, G. Pan, Y . Zhao, A novel hybrid model based on vmd-wt and pca-bp-rbf neural network for short-term wind speed forecasting, Energy Conversion and Management 195 (2019) 180–197. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.05.005. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect...

    2019 doi

  24. [33]

    L. Ge, Y . Xian, J. Yan, B. Wang, Z. Wang, A hybrid model for short-term pv output forecasting based on pca-gwo-grnn, Journal of Modern Power Systems and Clean Energy 8 (6) (2020) 1268–1275

    2020

  25. [34]

    Platon, V

    R. Platon, V . R. Dehkordi, J. Martel, Hourly prediction of a build- ing’s electricity consumption using case-based reasoning, artificial neu- ral networks and principal component analysis, Energy and Buildings 92 (2015) 10–18.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015. 01.047...

    2015 doi

  26. [35]

    Machlev, D

    R. Machlev, D. Tolkachov, Y . Levron, Y . Beck, Dimension reduction for nilm classification based on principle component analysis, Electric Power Systems Research 187 (2020) 106459

    2020

  27. [36]

    Moradzadeh, O

    A. Moradzadeh, O. Sadeghian, K. Pourhossein, B. Mohammadi-Ivatloo, A. Anvari-Moghaddam, Improving residential load disaggregation for sustainable development of energy via principal component analysis, Sus- tainability 12 (8) (2020) 3158

    2020

  28. [37]

    D. Kaur, S. N. Islam, M. A. Mahmud, A variational autoencoder-based dimensionality reduction technique for generation forecasting in cyber- physical smart grids, in: 2021 IEEE International Conference on Commu- nications Workshops (ICC Workshops), 2021, pp. 1–6.doi:10.1109/ IC...

    2021

  29. [38]

    Pourdaryaei, M

    A. Pourdaryaei, M. Mohammadi, H. Mubarak, A. Abdellatif, M. Karimi, E. Gryazina, V . Terzija, A new framework for electricity price forecasting via multi-head self-attention and cnn-based techniques in the competitive electricity market, Expert Systems with Applications 235 (2...

    2024

  30. [39]

    Miller, B

    C. Miller, B. Picchetti, C. Fu, J. Pantelic, Limitations of machine learning for building energy prediction, arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.13475 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Mostafa, B

    F. Mostafa, B. Jethro, W. Yi, M. Stephen, S. Wencong, Z. Hamidreza, Day-ahead electricity demand forecasting compeition: Post-covid paradigm, IEEE Open Access Journal of Power and Energy 9 (2022) 185– 191

    2022

  32. [41]

    Datastore, Photovoltaic (pv) solar panel energy generation data (2021)

    L. Datastore, Photovoltaic (pv) solar panel energy generation data (2021). URLhttp://data.europa.eu/88u/dataset/ photovoltaic-pv-solar-panel-energy-generation-data

    2021

  33. [42]

    URLhttps://www.kaggle.com/datasets/anikannal/ solar-power-generation-data

    Kannal, Solar power generation data (2020). URLhttps://www.kaggle.com/datasets/anikannal/ solar-power-generation-data

    2020

  34. [43]

    J. a. Soares, Z. Vale, B. Canizes, H. Morais, Multi-objective parallel particle swarm optimization for day-ahead vehicle-to-grid scheduling, in: 2013 IEEE Computational Intelligence Applications in Smart Grid (CIASG), 2013, pp. 138–145.doi:10.1109/CIASG.2013.6611510

    2013

  35. [44]

    Gaete-Morales, emobpy: application for the german case (Feb

    C. Gaete-Morales, emobpy: application for the german case (Feb. 2021). doi:10.5281/zenodo.4514928. URLhttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4514928

    2021 doi

  36. [45]

    URLhttps://www.kaggle.com/datasets/jorgesandoval/ wind-power-generation

    Sandoval, Wind power generation data (2021). URLhttps://www.kaggle.com/datasets/jorgesandoval/ wind-power-generation

    2021

  37. [46]

    URLhttps://www.kaggle.com/datasets/aymanlafaz/ wind-energy-germany

    Lafaz, Wind energy in germany (2019). URLhttps://www.kaggle.com/datasets/aymanlafaz/ wind-energy-germany

    2019

  38. [47]

    Kriechbaumer, H.-A

    T. Kriechbaumer, H.-A. Jacobsen, Blond, a building-level office environ- ment dataset of typical electrical appliances, Scientific data 5 (1) (2018) 1–14

    2018

  39. [48]

    V ¨olker, M

    B. V ¨olker, M. Pfeifer, P. M. Scholl, B. Becker, Fired: A fully-labeled high-frequency electricity disaggregation dataset, in: Proceedings of the 7th ACM International Conference on Systems for Energy-Efficient Buildings, Cities, and Transportation, BuildSys ’20, Association ...

    2020

  40. [49]

    Kelly, W

    J. Kelly, W. Knottenbelt, The uk-dale dataset, domestic appliance-level electricity demand and whole-house demand from five uk homes, Scien- tific data 2 (1) (2015) 1–14

    2015

  41. [50]

    Murray, L

    D. Murray, L. Stankovic, V . Stankovic, An electrical load measurements dataset of united kingdom households from a two-year longitudinal study, Scientific data 4 (1) (2017) 1–12

    2017

  42. [51]

    Beckel, W

    C. Beckel, W. Kleiminger, R. Cicchetti, T. Staake, S. Santini, The eco data set and the performance of non-intrusive load monitoring algorithms, in: Proceedings of the 1st ACM conference on embedded systems for energy- efficient buildings, 2014, pp. 80–89. 11

    2014

  43. [52]

    J. Z. Kolter, M. J. Johnson, Redd: A public data set for energy disaggrega- tion research, in: Workshop on data mining applications in sustainability (SIGKDD), San Diego, CA, V ol. 25, 2011, pp. 59–62

    2011

  44. [53]

    Batra, M

    N. Batra, M. Gulati, A. Singh, M. B. Srivastava, It’s different: Insights into home energy consumption in india, in: Proceedings of the 5th ACM Workshop on Embedded Systems For Energy-Efficient Buildings, 2013, pp. 1–8

    2013

  45. [54]

    Batra, O

    N. Batra, O. Parson, M. Berges, A. Singh, A. Rogers, A comparison of non-intrusive load monitoring methods for commercial and residential buildings (2014).arXiv:1408.6595

    2014 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Makonin, Hue: The hourly usage of energy dataset for buildings in british columbia, Tech

    S. Makonin, Hue: The hourly usage of energy dataset for buildings in british columbia, Tech. rep. (2018).doi:10.7910/DVN/N3HGRN. URLhttps://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml? persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/N3HGRN

    2018 doi

  47. [56]

    Stamatescu, Hvac air handling units: One-year data from medium-to- large size academic building (2019).doi:10.21227/0kbv-zs06

    G. Stamatescu, Hvac air handling units: One-year data from medium-to- large size academic building (2019).doi:10.21227/0kbv-zs06. URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.21227/0kbv-zs06

    2019 doi

  48. [57]

    H. Li, Z. Wang, T. Hong, A synthetic building operation dataset, Scientific data 8 (1) (2021) 1–13

    2021

  49. [58]

    Hebrail, A

    G. Hebrail, A. Berard, Individual household electric power con- sumption data set, Tech. rep., EDF R&D, Clamart, France, https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/individual+ household+electric+power+consumption(2012)

    2012

  50. [59]

    Rennie, C

    S. Rennie, C. Andrews, S. Atkinson, D. Beaumont, S. Benham, V . Bow- maker, J. Dick, B. Dodd, C. McKenna, D. Pallett, et al., The uk environ- mental change network datasets–integrated and co-located data for long- term environmental research (1993–2015), Earth System Science D...

    2020

  51. [60]

    URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.5285/ 92e823b277cc4f439803a87f5246db5f

    MetOffice, Midas open: Uk daily temperature data, v202107 (2021). URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.5285/ 92e823b277cc4f439803a87f5246db5f

    2021

  52. [61]

    W. I. Y . Keller, J. D. Keller, Daily weather data averages for Germany aggregated over official weather stations (Jun. 2021).doi:10.5281/ zenodo.5015006. URLhttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5015006

    2021 doi

  53. [62]

    URLhttps://www.kaggle.com/datasets/mahirkukreja/ delhi-weather-data

    Kukreja, Delhi weather data (2017). URLhttps://www.kaggle.com/datasets/mahirkukreja/ delhi-weather-data

    2017

  54. [63]

    Spichakova, J

    M. Spichakova, J. Belikov, K. Nou, E. Petlenkov, Feature engineering for short-term forecast of energy consumption, in: 2019 IEEE PES Inno- vative Smart Grid Technologies Europe (ISGT-Europe), IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–5.doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2019.8905698

    2019

  55. [64]

    Sinimaa, M

    M. Sinimaa, M. Spichakova, J. Belikov, E. Petlenkov, Feature engi- neering of weather data for short-term energy consumption forecast, in: 2021 IEEE Madrid PowerTech, 2021, pp. 1–6.doi:10.1109/ PowerTech46648.2021.9494920

    2021

  56. [65]

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

    2021

  57. [66]

    S. M. Lundberg, S.-I. Lee, A unified approach to interpreting model pre- dictions, in: I. Guyon, U. V . Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, R. Garnett (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30, Curran Associates, Inc., 2017, pp. 4765–...

    2017

  58. [67]

    S. M. Lundberg, G. Erion, H. Chen, A. DeGrave, J. M. Prutkin, B. Nair, R. Katz, J. Himmelfarb, N. Bansal, S.-I. Lee, From local explanations to global understanding with explainable ai for trees, Nature Machine Intel- ligence 2 (1) (2020) 2522–5839

    2020

  59. [68]

    Baudeu, M

    R. Baudeu, M. N. Wright, M. Loecher, Are shap values biased towards high-entropy features?, in: Machine Learning and Principles and Prac- tice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases: International Workshops of ECML PKDD 2022, Grenoble, France, September 19–23, 2022, Proceed- ings...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.