跳到正文
arXiv:cs.LG· Faraz Shamim (KIST Medical College and Teaching Hospital, Nepal), Faris Shamim (OTH Regensburg)·· 7 小时前AI 评分29

数据延迟与时间分布偏移下的德国再调度预测机器学习基准

Machine Learning for German Redispatch Forecasting under Data Delays and Temporal Distribution Shift

AI 导读

研究在最小七天目标延迟约束下,基于德国四大输电系统运营商2021至2024年的48242条再调度记录,对比了季节经验、ARX、分位数LightGBM、GRU与Transformer模型的概率预测表现。

正文

Authors:Faraz Shamim (1), Faris Shamim (2) ((1) KIST Medical College and Teaching Hospital, Nepal, (2) OTH Regensburg)

View PDF

Abstract:Public redispatch records provide empirical data for grid congestion forecasting, but delayed reporting, zero-inflated distributions, and temporal shift present major modeling challenges. We assess the accuracy and reliability of probabilistic machine-learning forecasts using published German transmission records under experimentally imposed information-age constraints. The benchmark evaluates eight daily series of upward and downward intervention energy across four German transmission system operators from 2021 to 2024 (48,242 eligible records; 354 evaluation dates in 2024). We compare seasonal empirical, regularized autoregressive (ARX), quantile LightGBM, GRU, and Transformer models under a minimum seven-day target-latency constraint. Neural architectures use a zero-censored output head to accommodate exact-zero outcomes. Static, rolling, and adaptive delayed-feedback calibration are evaluated using normalized weighted interval score (nWIS), empirical coverage, and block-bootstrap inference. Raw LightGBM achieved nWIS 0.7952, outperforming ARX (1.0604) and the seasonal baseline (0.8739) by 25.0% and 9.0%, respectively (Holm-adjusted p<0.005). Rolling calibration improved LightGBM to nWIS 0.7767 versus 0.8251 for static calibration (p=0.0092), with 91.81% coverage for nominal 90% intervals. The zero-censored Transformer achieved nWIS 0.8161, with no significant difference from LightGBM (p=0.260). However, aggregate coverage concealed substantial undercoverage during high-volume interventions (61.91% coverage among above-threshold events). These results show that boosted-tree models with rolling calibration provide accurate probabilistic forecasts of aggregate redispatch volumes under target delays, while nominal aggregate validity does not ensure reliability during extreme congestion events.
Comments: 15 pages, 4 figures, 3 tables. Code available at this https URL
Subjects: Systems and Control (eess.SY); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
Cite as: arXiv:2610.08337 [eess.SY]
  (or arXiv:2610.08337v1 [eess.SY] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.08337

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Faraz Shamim [view email]
[v1] Tue, 6 Oct 2026 13:35:50 UTC (605 KB)

来源:arXiv:cs.LG · arxiv.org