Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Probabilistic intraday electricity price forecasting using generative machine learning

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 conditional generative model can draw realistic intraday electricity price paths and, used for sell timing, achieves higher trading profits than the benchmark methods in a fixed-volume scenario.

desk verdict Useful application of generative ML to intraday electricity price paths, but the economic edge is too small and too noisy to carry the paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00044 v1 pith:C77U66HW submitted 2025-05-28 stat.AP cs.LGstat.ML

Jieyu Chen , Sebastian Lerch , Melanie Schienle , Tomasz Serafin , Rafa{l} Weron This is my paper
classification stat.APcs.LGstat.ML
keywords intradayelectricitypricesprobabilisticforecastinggenerativemachinelearningconditionalmodelenergyscoretradingstrategiesrealizedpotentialGermancontinuousmarket
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 conditional generative model (CGM) can forecast the full multivariate path of intraday electricity prices in Germany's continuous market, and that those generated price paths are not only statistically competitive but also more profitable in a realistic fixed-volume selling scenario. The authors claim this is the first application of generative machine learning to intraday electricity price path forecasting. Their economic evaluation shows that CGM path forecasts achieve a realized trading potential of about 52.3 in the majority-vote strategy, roughly 4 percent higher than the best naive benchmark of always selling in the last subperiod. The paper matters because intraday trading volume is growing fast and timing decisions require path forecasts, not just point or marginal distribution forecasts.

What carries the argument

The key object is the conditional generative model (CGM), an implicit generative neural network that outputs sample price-path trajectories directly from latent Gaussian noise scaled by learned uncertainty estimates. It has three modules: a time-series forecast module, a conditional-noise module that scales the noise with historical price variability, and a combination module that merges intermediate predictions, noise, and recent exogenous inputs. The model is trained with the energy score, a proper multivariate scoring rule that compares generated paths with observed paths; a variant adds a custom loss term that penalizes disagreement between the majority-vote selling time selected from generated paths and the observed optimal selling time. This machinery is what lets the paper bypass separate marginal modeling and copula fitting.

What would settle it

Re-run the prediction-band trading evaluation with the simultaneous coverage level selected each day from a rolling window of past data only, before seeing the day's prices, and check whether the custom-loss CGM still has the highest profits in the middle range; a second check is to add realistic transaction costs and market impact to the fixed-volume scenario and see whether the 4 percent majority-vote gain survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a generative neural network trained to minimize the energy score can produce realistic 10-dimensional trajectories of volume-weighted average prices from three hours to 30 minutes before delivery, capturing temporal dependencies that two-step marginal-plus-copula benchmarks have to impose separately. In the paper's own evaluation, no single method dominates on all statistical scores, but the CGM variants match or beat the LASSO bootstrap benchmark on the Dawid-Sebastiani and variogram scores, especially in on-peak hours, indicating better dependence structure. Economically, the CGM variants give the largest total profits under the majority-vote strategy, and in the upper prediction-band strategy the custom-loss CGM consistently yields the highest profits in the middle 25–75 percent simultaneous-coverage range. The authors state that their work is the first to introduce generative machine learning for forecasting intraday electricity price paths.

Load-bearing premise

The economic advantage of the generative model's prediction-band strategy depends on choosing the simultaneous coverage levels in the 25–75 percent range after seeing the test-period results; if those levels had to be fixed in advance, or the test period is not representative, the profit gain may not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Path forecasts from the CGM can be plugged directly into timing strategies for selling fixed volumes, giving about 4 percent higher realized trading potential than the best naive benchmark in the majority-vote strategy.
  • In the upper prediction-band strategy with middle-range simultaneous coverage levels, the custom-loss CGM consistently outperforms both the statistical benchmarks and the naive baselines, suggesting economic objectives can be trained into the generative model.
  • Because the CGM captures temporal dependencies better than the benchmarks in on-peak hours, it is most valuable during the periods that matter most for trading.
  • No method dominates on all metrics, so statistical rankings alone are not enough to choose a forecasting model for trading; economic evaluation changes the ordering.
  • Two-step marginal-plus-copula approaches remain competitive, so generative models are an alternative rather than an automatic replacement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the coverage levels in the 25–75% range were selected after seeing test-period results, the paper's strongest economic claim would be on firmer ground if the same advantage appears when coverage levels are fixed in advance; checking this with a rolling ex-ante choice is a direct stress test.
  • The 4% majority-vote gain is computed under zero transaction costs and no market impact; a natural extension is to add a realistic cost model, since a small margin could easily be consumed.
  • The custom-loss idea generalizes beyond selling 1 MWh: any differentiable downstream decision rule, such as battery arbitrage or risk-minimizing portfolio allocation, could be embedded in the generative training loss.
  • The test period ends in September 2019, so the approach's behaviour in the volatile COVID-era and 2022 markets is untested; applying the same pipeline to 2021–2023 data would show whether the advantages persist under structural breaks.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a conditional generative model (CGM) for probabilistic path forecasting of intraday electricity prices in the German continuous-time market. The CGM is trained either with the energy score or with a custom loss that combines the energy score with a term based on the majority-vote trading strategy. The authors compare the CGM against two statistical benchmark methods (LQC and LASSO bootstrap) using proper scoring rules, and evaluate economic performance in a fixed-volume selling scenario via majority-vote and prediction-band-based trading strategies. The central claims are that the CGM produces competitive statistical forecasts, better captures temporal dependencies than the benchmarks, and yields higher profit gains in the economic evaluation.

Significance. The topic is timely, the experimental setup is thorough, and the authors provide publicly available code and a careful comparison based on proper scoring rules. The statistical evaluation is a useful contribution, and the CGM appears competitive with established benchmarks. However, the headline economic claim rests on small profit differences over a single test period without uncertainty quantification, and on ex-post selected simultaneous coverage probabilities. These issues need to be addressed before the economic conclusions can be considered established. The manuscript is a solid application study with a reproducible framework, but the current evidence does not fully support the stronger statements in the abstract and conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.2, Figure 7(a)] The central economic claim that the CGM variants lead to higher profit gains is supported only by realized trading potential values of about 52.3 for the two CGM variants, 51.8 for LASSO bootstrap, and 50.3 for Naive last, all computed over a single 200-day test period. No standard errors, confidence intervals, or significance tests are provided, and the differences are small in absolute terms. The authors themselves acknowledge in Section 6 that 'the overall improvements over naive benchmark strategies remain limited.' Because Figure 7(b) shows that the highest realized price occurs most often in the final subperiod, the effective sample for distinguishing methods is small. Without uncertainty quantification, the 1% advantage over LASSO bootstrap and the 4% advantage over Naive last cannot be distinguished from sampling noise, so the abstract's claim of higher profit gains is not yet supported.
  2. [Section 4.2.3, custom loss definition] The custom loss function combines the energy score with a term involving the mode of the argmax of generated trajectories and the argmax of the observed price path. Both terms are piecewise-constant functions of the neural network parameters, so the loss is not differentiable in the usual sense. The manuscript does not explain how gradients are obtained for training, for example through a straight-through estimator, a softened approximation, or a surrogate gradient. Since the code is available, this may be verifiable, but the paper should describe the mechanism explicitly. As written, the training procedure for the custom-loss CGM is incomplete.
  3. [Section 5.2, Figure 8] The claim that the custom-loss CGM 'consistently achieves the best performance' in the middle SCP range (25%–75%) relies on SCP values that were selected ex post after inspecting the test-period results. The paper acknowledges in Section 5.2 that the optimal SCP 'needs to be selected ex-ante, for example based on historical data,' but no ex-ante selection rule is implemented or evaluated. Because the SCP thresholds are tuned on the same data used to report the profit gains, the reported advantage may not be realizable in practice. A robustness check with a fixed SCP chosen from a calibration window, or a sensitivity analysis over SCP values chosen before the test period, is needed to support the economic conclusions.
  4. [Section 6 and Section 1] The statement in Section 6 that the work is 'the first to introduce generative machine learning methods for forecasting ID electricity price paths' is difficult to reconcile with Cramer et al. (2023), which is cited in Section 1 and uses normalizing flows—a generative machine learning method—for multivariate probabilistic forecasting of intraday electricity prices. The introduction's earlier caveat about neural network-based models for joint multivariate distributions does not address why normalizing flows do not qualify. The novelty claim should be either justified with a precise distinction or softened to avoid overstatement.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.3] The word 'obseervations' in the sentence 'based on past obseervations' is a typo and should read 'observations.'
  2. [Section 4.2.2] The term 'orcale' in 'a crystal ball (or orcale) benchmark' is a typo and should read 'oracle.'
  3. [Section 5.2] In the text 'the Naivelast benchmark performs well,' 'Naivelast' should be 'Naive last' for consistency with the benchmark name used elsewhere.
  4. [Figure 2] The tensor dimensions shown in the schematic (e.g., 165, 44, 20, 100, M, 10) are not fully explained in the caption or text; a brief description of the meaning of these dimensions would improve readability.
  5. [Section 3.1.2] The hyperparameter configuration is described only by reference to the accompanying code; providing a table of the key hyperparameters in the paper would make the results more reproducible and easier to assess.
  6. [Section 2] The notation 'VW APs' appears with an inconsistent spacing; standardize to either 'VWAPs' or 'VW APs' throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the forecast comparison is out-of-sample against independent statistical benchmarks, and the acknowledged limitations prevent any by-construction reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivations do not reduce to their inputs by definition. The CGM is trained on a 630-day period and evaluated on a separate 200-day out-of-sample test period (Sections 2 and 3.1.2), and the economic comparisons are computed from realized test-period profits rather than from training objectives. The custom loss in Section 4.2.3 optimizes an index-matching term on training data; it does not directly optimize test-period profits, and under the majority-vote strategy the best profit is actually achieved by the CGM trained with the energy score, not the custom-loss variant, so the headline comparison is not forced by the training loss. The LASSO bootstrap and LQC benchmarks originate in Serafin et al. (2022), but they are implemented as standard, independently specifiable statistical procedures (LEAR point forecasts, quantile regression, Gaussian copula, bootstrap error vectors) and are evaluated with established proper scoring rules; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported through self-citation. The ex-post selection of SCP thresholds in Figure 8 is transparently acknowledged by the authors ('SCP values ranging from 5% to 95% are considered as ex-post selected thresholds'), and no predictive claim is made for the selected 25%-75% range; this is a methodological caveat rather than a circularity. Section 6 explicitly concedes that 'the overall improvements over naive benchmark strategies remain limited,' further softening any suggestion that the results are predetermined. Overall, the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks, so no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model architecture and trading rules are composed of existing components (energy score, Gaussian latent noise, copula, prediction bands). No new market entities or physical quantities are introduced. The main ledger entries are hyperparameters and the ex-post SCP selection that supports the economic comparison.

free parameters (5)
  • Latent dimension of noise (D_latent) = 100
    Chosen via grid search on the validation set (Section 3.1.2, Figure 3). Controls per-sample randomness.
  • Number of dense layers (overall) = 10
    Selected through exploratory experiments and grid search (Section 3.1.2).
  • Weight omega in custom loss = 0.5
    Preliminary experiments suggested equally weighted loss is a better trade-off between statistical and economic performance (Section 4.2.3, footnote 6).
  • Learning rate, batch size, early stopping patience = 1e-4, 1024, 10
    Standard tuning choices stated in Section 3.1.2.
  • Simultaneous coverage probability (SCP) for prediction bands = 5% to 95%
    Ex-post selected thresholds; results are shown for all SCP values, and the emphasized middle range is chosen after seeing the curves (Section 5.2).
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The energy score is a strictly proper scoring rule, so minimizing it recovers the conditional distribution in the limit.
    Invoked as the CGM training loss (Sections 3.1 and 4.1.1), following Gneiting and Raftery (2007).
  • domain assumption The neural network architecture is expressive enough to approximate the true predictive distribution within the data range.
    Implicit generative model assumption in Section 3.1; not guaranteed with finite data and a fixed architecture.
  • domain assumption The fixed-volume single-trade scenario is a meaningful proxy for economic value in the intraday market.
    Section 4.2: assumes no transaction costs and negligible market impact; standard but idealized.
  • domain assumption Actual values of wind generation and load are available with a delay of less than three hours.
    Stated in Section 2; if false, the input pipeline would be invalid.
  • domain assumption The 200-day test period (13.03.2019 to 29.09.2019) is representative of the market regime and free of structural breaks.
    Test period chosen before COVID-19 and the Ukraine war (Section 2); no stability analysis is provided.
  • domain assumption The reimplementations of the LQC and LASSO bootstrap benchmarks are correct.
    The paper notes LQC results differ from Serafin et al. (2022) due to a bug in the original preprocessing (Section 5.1), so the comparison depends on this new implementation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probabilistic intraday electricity price forecasting using generative machine learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C77U66HW

@misc{pith2026250600044,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probabilistic intraday electricity price forecasting using generative machine learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C77U66HW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00044}
}
read the original abstract

The growing importance of intraday electricity trading in Europe calls for improved price forecasting and tailored decision-support tools. In this paper, we propose a novel generative neural network model to generate probabilistic path forecasts for intraday electricity prices and use them to construct effective trading strategies for Germany's continuous-time intraday market. Our method demonstrates competitive performance in terms of statistical evaluation metrics compared to two state-of-the-art statistical benchmark approaches. To further assess its economic value, we consider a realistic fixed-volume trading scenario and propose various strategies for placing market sell orders based on the path forecasts. Among the different trading strategies, the price paths generated by our generative model lead to higher profit gains than the benchmark methods. Our findings highlight the potential of generative machine learning tools in electricity price forecasting and underscore the importance of economic evaluation.

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Forecasting Probability Distributions of Financial Returns with Deep Neural Networks

    q-fin.RM 2025-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    LSTM networks with skewed Student's t distributions can produce distributional forecasts of equity returns that are competitive with GARCH for Value-at-Risk, though calibration failures and selective reporting temper ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , Bollerslev, T

    Aleti, S. , Bollerslev, T. and Siggaard, M. (2025). Intraday Market Return Predictability Culled from the Factor Zoo . Management Science, 0 ,

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    , Coulon, M

    Alexander, C. , Coulon, M. , Han, Y. and Meng, X. (2024). Evaluating the discrimination ability of proper multi-variate scoring rules. Annals of Operations Research, 334 , 857--883

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    , Keles, D

    Backer, M. , Keles, D. and Kraft, E. (2023). The economic impacts of integrating European balancing markets: The case of the newly installed aFRR energy market-coupling platform PICASSO . Energy Economics 107124

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Browell, J. (2018). Risk constrained trading strategies for stochastic generation with a single-price balancing market. Energies, 11 , 1345

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    and Gilbert, C

    Browell, J. and Gilbert, C. (2022). Predicting electricity imbalance prices and volumes: Capabilities and opportunities . Energies, 15 , 3645

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    , Gianfreda, A

    Bunn, D. , Gianfreda, A. and Kermer, S. (2018). A trading-based evaluation of density forecasts in a real-time electricity market. Energies, 11 , 2658

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    , Janke, T

    Chen, J. , Janke, T. , Steinke, F. and Lerch, S. (2024 a ). Generative machine learning methods for multivariate ensemble postprocessing. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 18 , 159 -- 183

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    , Pelger, M

    Chen, L. , Pelger, M. and Zhu, J. (2024 b ). Deep Learning in Asset Pricing . Management Science, 70 , 714--750

    work page 2024

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    , Zamani-Dehkordi, P

    Chitsaz, H. , Zamani-Dehkordi, P. , Zareipour, H. and Parikh, P. (2018). Electricity price forecasting for operational scheduling of behind-the-meter storage systems. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 9 , 6612--6622

    2018

  2. [10]

    , Unterthiner, T

    Clevert, D.-A. , Unterthiner, T. and Hochreiter, S. (2015). Fast and Accurate Deep Network Learning by Exponential Linear Units (ELUs) . a rXiv preprint arXiv:1511.07289 [cs.LG]

    2015 arXiv

  3. [11]

    , Witthaut, D

    Cramer, E. , Witthaut, D. , Mitsos, A. and Dahmen, M. (2023). Multivariate probabilistic forecasting of intraday electricity prices using normalizing flows. Applied Energy, 346 , 121370

    2023

  4. [12]

    Cramton, P. (2017). Electricity market design. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33 , 589--612

    2017

  5. [13]

    Dawid, A. P. and Sebastiani, P. (1999). Coherent dispersion criteria for optimal experimental design. Annals of Statistics 65--81

    1999

  6. [14]

    Annual Trading Results of 2024 -- Power Trading on EPEX SPOT reaches all-time high

    EPEX (2025). Annual Trading Results of 2024 -- Power Trading on EPEX SPOT reaches all-time high . https://www.epexspot.com/en/news/annual-trading-results-2024-power-trading-epex-spot-reaches-all-time-high https://www.epexspot.com/en/news/annual-trading-results-2024-power-tradi...

    2025

  7. [15]

    , Joskow, P

    Glachant, J.-M. , Joskow, P. and Pollitt, M. (2021). Handbook on Electricity Markets. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd

    2021

  8. [16]

    and Raftery, A

    Gneiting, T. and Raftery, A. (2007). Strictly Proper Scoring Rules, Prediction, and Estimation . Journal of the American Statistical Association, 102 , 359--378

    2007

  9. [17]

    Hirsch, S. (2025). Online Multivariate Regularized Distributional Regression for High-dimensional Probabilistic Electricity Price Forecasting . a rXiv preprint arXiv:2504.02518 [stat.ML]

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    and Ziel, F

    Hirsch, S. and Ziel, F. (2024). Multivariate simulation-based forecasting for intraday power markets: Modeling cross-product price effects . Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, 40 , 1571--1595

    2024

  11. [19]

    and Pu \'c , A

    Janczura, J. and Pu \'c , A. (2023). ARX-GARCH probabilistic price forecasts for diversification of trade in electricity markets -- variance stabilizing transformation and financial risk-minimizing portfolio allocation. Energies, 16 , 807

    2023

  12. [20]

    and W \'o jcik, E

    Janczura, J. and W \'o jcik, E. (2022). Dynamic short-term risk management strategies for the choice of electricity market based on probabilistic forecasts of profit and risk measures. The German and the Polish market case study . Energy Economics, 110 , 106015

    2022

  13. [21]

    and Steinke, F

    Janke, T. and Steinke, F. (2019). Forecasting the price distribution of continuous intraday electricity trading. Energies, 12 , 4262

    2019

  14. [22]

    and Steinke, F

    Janke, T. and Steinke, F. (2020). Probabilistic multivariate electricity price forecasting using implicit generative ensemble post-processing. In 2020 International Conference on Probabilistic Methods Applied to Power Systems (PMAPS). 1--6

    2020

  15. [23]

    , Kr \"u ger, F

    Jordan, A. , Kr \"u ger, F. and Lerch, S. (2019). Evaluating Probabilistic Forecasts with scoringRules . Journal of Statistical Software, 90 , 1--37

    2019

  16. [24]

    and Ziel, F

    Kath, C. and Ziel, F. (2018). The value of forecasts: Quantifying the economic gains of accurate quarter-hourly electricity price forecasts . Energy Economics, 76 , 411--423

    2018

  17. [25]

    Kingma, D. P. and Ba, J. (2014). Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization . a rXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 [cs.LG]

    2014 arXiv

  18. [26]

    , Smith, M

    Klein, N. , Smith, M. S. and Nott, D. J. (2023). Deep distributional time series models and the probabilistic forecasting of intraday electricity prices. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 38 , 493--511

    2023

  19. [27]

    Koenker, R. W. (2005). Quantile Regression. Cambridge University Press

    2005

  20. [28]

    Kolassa, S. (2020). Why the ``best'' point forecast depends on the error or accuracy measure. International Journal of Forecasting, 36 , 208--211

    2020

  21. [29]

    and Wozabal, D

    Kuppelwieser, T. and Wozabal, D. (2021). Liquidity costs on intraday power markets: Continuous trading versus auctions. Energy Policy, 154 , 112299

    2021

  22. [30]

    and Wozabal, D

    Kuppelwieser, T. and Wozabal, D. (2023). Intraday power trading: toward an arms race in weather forecasting? OR Spectrum, 45 , 57--83

    2023

  23. [31]

    , Marcjasz, G

    Lago, J. , Marcjasz, G. , De Schutter, B. and Weron, R. (2021). Forecasting day-ahead electricity prices: A review of state-of-the-art algorithms, best practices and an open-access benchmark. Applied Energy, 293 , 116983

    2021

  24. [32]

    , Lerch, S

    Lakatos, M. , Lerch, S. , Hemri, S. and Baran, S. (2023). Comparison of Multivariate Post-Processing Methods Using Global ECMWF Ensemble Forecasts . Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 149 , 856--877

    2023

  25. [33]

    , David, M

    Lauret, P. , David, M. and Pinson, P. (2019). Verification of solar irradiance probabilistic forecasts. Solar Energy, 194 , 254--271

    2019

  26. [34]

    , Baran, S

    Lerch, S. , Baran, S. , M \"o ller, A. , Gro , J. , Schefzik, R. , Hemri, S. and Graeter, M. (2020). Simulation-Based Comparison of Multivariate Ensemble Post-Processing Methods . Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 27 , 349--371

    2020

  27. [35]

    Maciejowska, K. (2022). Portfolio management of a small RES utility with a structural vector autoregressive model of electricity markets in Germany . Operations Research and Decisions, 32 , 75--90

    2022

  28. [36]

    , Nitka, W

    Maciejowska, K. , Nitka, W. and Weron, T. (2021). Enhancing load, wind and solar generation for day-ahead forecasting of electricity prices. Energy Economics, 99 , 105273

    2021

  29. [37]

    , Uniejewski, B

    Maciejowska, K. , Uniejewski, B. and Weron, R. (2023). Forecasting Electricity Prices . In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance. Oxford University Press

    2023

  30. [38]

    Matheson, J. E. and Winkler, R. L. (1976). Scoring Rules for Continuous Probability Distributions . Management Science, 22 , 1087--1096

    1976

  31. [39]

    and Tr\"uck, S

    Mayer, K. and Tr\"uck, S. (2018). Electricity markets around the world. Journal of Commodity Markets, 9 , 77--100

    2018

  32. [40]

    , Ramirez-Rosado, I

    Monteiro, C. , Ramirez-Rosado, I. , Fernandez-Jimenez, L. and Conde, P. (2016). Short-term price forecasting models based on artificial neural networks for intraday sessions in the I berian electricity market. Energies, 9 , 721

    2016

  33. [41]

    and Ziel, F

    Narajewski, M. and Ziel, F. (2020 a ). Econometric modelling and forecasting of intraday electricity prices. Journal of Commodity Markets, 19 , 100107

    2020

  34. [42]

    and Ziel, F

    Narajewski, M. and Ziel, F. (2020 b ). Ensemble forecasting for intraday electricity prices: Simulating trajectories. Applied Energy, 279 , 115801

    2020

  35. [43]

    and Weron, R

    Nowotarski, J. and Weron, R. (2015). Computing electricity spot price prediction intervals using quantile regression and forecast averaging. Computational Statistics, 30 , 791--803

    2015

  36. [44]

    and Ugurlu, U

    Oksuz, I. and Ugurlu, U. (2019). Neural network based model comparison for intraday electricity price forecasting. Energies, 12 , 4557

    2019

  37. [45]

    , Adewoyin, R

    Pacchiardi, L. , Adewoyin, R. A. , Dueben, P. and Dutta, R. (2024). Probabilistic Forecasting with Generative Networks via Scoring Rule Minimization . Journal of Machine Learning Research, 25 , 1--64

    2024

  38. [46]

    and Girard, R

    Pinson, P. and Girard, R. (2012). Evaluating the quality of scenarios of short-term wind power generation. Applied Energy, 96 , 12--20

    2012

  39. [47]

    , Madsen, H

    Pinson, P. , Madsen, H. , Nielsen, H. A. , Papaefthymiou, G. and Kl \"o ckl, B. (2009). From probabilistic forecasts to statistical scenarios of short-term wind power production. Wind Energy, 12 , 51--62

    2009

  40. [48]

    and Lerch, S

    Rasp, S. and Lerch, S. (2018). Neural networks for postprocessing ensemble weather forecasts. Monthly Weather Review, 146 , 3885--3900

    2018

  41. [49]

    , Kraft, E

    Russo, M. , Kraft, E. , Bertsch, V. and Keles, D. (2022). Short-term risk management of electricity retailers under rising shares of decentralized solar generation. Energy Economics, 109 , 105956

    2022

  42. [50]

    , Thorarinsdottir, T

    Schefzik, R. , Thorarinsdottir, T. L. and Gneiting, T. (2013). Uncertainty Quantification in Complex Simulation Models Using Ensemble Copula Coupling . Statistical Science, 28 , 616--640

    2013

  43. [51]

    and Hamill, T

    Scheuerer, M. and Hamill, T. M. (2015). Variogram-based proper scoring rules for probabilistic forecasts of multivariate quantities. Monthly Weather Review, 143 , 1321--1334

    2015

  44. [52]

    , Köhler, L

    Schulz, B. , Köhler, L. and Lerch, S. (2022). Aggregating distribution forecasts from deep ensembles. a rXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02291 [stat.ML]

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    , Marcjasz, G

    Serafin, T. , Marcjasz, G. and Weron, R. (2022). Trading on short-term path forecasts of intraday electricity prices. Energy Economics, 112 , 106125

    2022

  46. [54]

    Staszewska, A. (2007). Representing uncertainty about response paths: The use of heuristic optimisation methods. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 52 , 121--132

    2007

  47. [55]

    Tibshirani, R. (1996). Regression Shrinkage and Selection via the Lasso . Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 58 , 267--288

    1996

  48. [56]

    , Pierre, E

    Tschora, L. , Pierre, E. , Plantevit, M. and Robardet, C. (2022). Electricity price forecasting on the day-ahead market using machine learning. Applied Energy, 313 , 118752

    2022

  49. [57]

    , Marcjasz, G

    Uniejewski, B. , Marcjasz, G. and Weron, R. (2019). Understanding intraday electricity markets: Variable selection and very short-term price forecasting using LASSO . International Journal of Forecasting, 35 , 1533--1547

    2019

  50. [58]

    , Weron, R

    Uniejewski, B. , Weron, R. and Ziel, F. (2018). Variance stabilizing transformations for electricity spot price forecasting. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 33 , 2219--2229

    2018

  51. [59]

    Weron, R. (2014). Electricity price forecasting: A review of the state-of-the-art with a look into the future. International Journal of Forecasting, 30 , 1030--1081

    2014

  52. [60]

    Wilks, D. S. (2020). Regularized Dawid-Sebastiani score for multivariate ensemble forecasts. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 146 , 2421--2431

    2020

  53. [61]

    and Petropoulos, F

    Yardley, E. and Petropoulos, F. (2021). Beyond error measures to the utility and cost of the forecasts. Foresight, Q4 , 36--45

    2021

  54. [62]

    and Wu, M

    Zhang, Z. and Wu, M. (2022). Predicting real-time locational marginal prices: A GAN -based approach. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 37 , 1286--1296

    2022

  55. [63]

    and Weron, R

    Ziel, F. and Weron, R. (2018). Day-ahead electricity price forecasting with high-dimensional structures: U nivariate vs. multivariate modeling frameworks. Energy Economics, 70 , 396--420

    2018

  56. [64]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archive author booktitle chapter collaboration edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number numpages organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output....

  57. [65]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

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