| Literature DB >> 26106410 |
Mauro Castelli1, Leonardo Trujillo2, Leonardo Vanneschi1.
Abstract
Energy consumption forecasting (ECF) is an important policy issue in today's economies. An accurate ECF has great benefits for electric utilities and both negative and positive errors lead to increased operating costs. The paper proposes a semantic based genetic programming framework to address the ECF problem. In particular, we propose a system that finds (quasi-)perfect solutions with high probability and that generates models able to produce near optimal predictions also on unseen data. The framework blends a recently developed version of genetic programming that integrates semantic genetic operators with a local search method. The main idea in combining semantic genetic programming and a local searcher is to couple the exploration ability of the former with the exploitation ability of the latter. Experimental results confirm the suitability of the proposed method in predicting the energy consumption. In particular, the system produces a lower error with respect to the existing state-of-the art techniques used on the same dataset. More importantly, this case study has shown that including a local searcher in the geometric semantic genetic programming system can speed up the search process and can result in fitter models that are able to produce an accurate forecasting also on unseen data.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26106410 PMCID: PMC4464001 DOI: 10.1155/2015/971908
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Training (plots (a) and (c)) and test (plots (b) and (d)) error for MAE (plots (a) and (b)) and MSE (plots (c) and (d)). The plots show the median over 30 independent runs.
p values obtained from the statistical validation procedure.
| Training | Test | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LSGP | STGP | HYBRID | LSGP | STGP | HYBRID | |
| MAE | ||||||
| GSGP | 3.02 | 9.8 | 3.02 | 5.19 | 3.3 | 7.66 |
| HYBRID | 1.6 | 3.02 | — | 1.7 | 2.0 | — |
| STGP | 3.02 | — | — | 2.0 | — | — |
|
| ||||||
| MSE | ||||||
| GSGP | 3.02 | 6.6 | 3.02 | 7.70 | 7.8 | 3.81 |
| HYBRID | 3.02 | 3.02 | — | 4.6 | 9.51 | — |
| STGP | 3.02 | — | — | 7.70 | — | — |
Execution time (seconds) of the considered GP systems. Median and standard deviation calculated over 30 runs.
| MAE | MSE | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GSGP | HYBRID | LSGP | STGP | GSGP | HYBRID | LSGP | STGP | |
| Execution time | 2.22 | 2.32 | 2.35 | 3.94 | 2.19 | 2.2 | 2.36 | 4.2 |
| Standard dev. | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.12 | 0.83 | 0.14 | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.78 |