| Literature DB >> 33267421 |
Jiandong Duan1,2, Xuan Tian1, Wentao Ma1, Xinyu Qiu1, Peng Wang1, Lin An3.
Abstract
The electricity consumption forecasting (ECF) technology plays a crucial role in the electricity market. The support vector regression (SVR) is a nonlinear prediction model that can be used for ECF. The electricity consumption (EC) data are usually nonlinear and non-Gaussian and present outliers. The traditional SVR with the mean-square error (MSE), however, is insensitive to outliers and cannot correctly represent the statistical information of errors in non-Gaussian situations. To address this problem, a novel robust forecasting method is developed in this work by using the mixture maximum correntropy criterion (MMCC). The MMCC, as a novel cost function of information theoretic, can be used to solve non-Gaussian signal processing; therefore, in the original SVR, the MSE is replaced by the MMCC to develop a novel robust SVR method (called MMCCSVR) for ECF. Besides, the factors influencing users' EC are investigated by a data statistical analysis method. We find that the historical temperature and historical EC are the main factors affecting future EC, and thus these two factors are used as the input in the proposed model. Finally, real EC data from a shopping mall in Guangzhou, China, are utilized to test the proposed ECF method. The forecasting results show that the proposed ECF method can effectively improve the accuracy of ECF compared with the traditional SVR and other forecasting algorithms.Entities:
Keywords: electricity consumption forecasting; mixture maximum correntropy criterion; parameter optimization; support vector regression
Year: 2019 PMID: 33267421 PMCID: PMC7515222 DOI: 10.3390/e21070707
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Entropy (Basel) ISSN: 1099-4300 Impact factor: 2.524
Figure 1Monthly electricity consumption (EC) of a shopping mall in 2017.
Figure 2Daily EC of the commercial property common area of the mall and its corresponding daily maximum temperature.
Figure 3Flow chart of the implementation process.
Figure 4Prediction accuracy varying with the parameters and .
Figure 5Prediction accuracy varying with the parameter .
Prediction accuracy varying with the parameter .
|
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
|
| 50.5 | 69.2 | 83.6 | 93.2 | 96.0 | 98.2 | 96.1 | 94.8 | 91.8 | 87.2 | 82.4 |
Figure 6Forecast results of the maximum mixture correntropy criterion support vector regression (MMCCSVR) method for a mall from 4 May to 3 June 2018.
Forecast results of MMCCSVR for a mall from 4 May to 3 June 2018.
| Day | Actual | Single Input | MAPE (%) | Two Input | MAPE (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 May | 39,442 | 41,463 | 5.12 | 397,19 | 0.70 |
| 5 May | 53,823 | 41,463 | 6.43 | 52,141 | −3.13 |
| 6 May | 40,666 | 57,283 | 8.01 | 38,997 | −4.10 |
| 7 May | 40,666 | 43,925 | 11.41 | 44,889 | 10.38 |
| 8 May | 48,099 | 45,305 | 3.16 | 48,100 | 0.00 |
| 9 May | 44,929 | 49,621 | 2.32 | 44,735 | −0.43 |
| 10 May | 42,820 | 45,973 | −1.82 | 43,160 | 0.79 |
| 11 May | 50,363 | 42,039 | −2.60 | 50,820 | 0.91 |
| 12 May | 51,381 | 49,056 | −3.18 | 51,659 | 0.54 |
| 13 May | 55,039 | 59,663 | 8.40 | 54,774 | −0.48 |
| 14 May | 42,610 | 44,984 | 5.57 | 46,824 | 9.89 |
| 15 May | 42,886 | 44,408 | 3.55 | 42,586 | −0.70 |
| 16 May | 44,358 | 46,295 | 4.37 | 44,364 | 0.01 |
| 17 May | 42,699 | 44,224 | 3.57 | 42,777 | 0.18 |
| 18 May | 45,329 | 43,647 | −3.71 | 45,329 | 0.00 |
| 19 May | 56,549 | 52,112 | −7.85 | 54,990 | −2.76 |
| 20 May | 55,039 | 53,006 | −3.69 | 54,984 | −0.10 |
| 21 May | 42,610 | 41,170 | −3.38 | 42,090 | −1.22 |
| 22 May | 53,268 | 49,759 | −6.59 | 52,574 | −1.30 |
| 23 May | 52,707 | 50,851 | −3.52 | 52,874 | 0.32 |
| 24 May | 52,913 | 50,834 | −3.93 | 52,546 | −0.69 |
| 25 May | 52,547 | 50,085 | −4.69 | 52,329 | −0.41 |
| 26 May | 60,092 | 54,925 | −8.60 | 60,408 | 0.53 |
| 27 May | 57,188 | 53,659 | −6.17 | 53,875 | −5.79 |
| 28 May | 50,614 | 49,047 | −3.10 | 50,614 | 0.00 |
| 29 May | 51,341 | 48,776 | −5.00 | 49,713 | −3.17 |
| 30 May | 53,857 | 51,274 | −4.80 | 53,825 | −0.06 |
| 31 May | 53,620 | 50,864 | −5.14 | 53,849 | 0.43 |
| 1 June | 62,691 | 58,118 | −7.29 | 66,143 | 5.51 |
| 2 June | 59,699 | 56,645 | −5.12 | 60,045 | 0.58 |
| 3 June | 56,619 | 53,493 | −5.52 | 56,348 | −0.48 |
| MAPE | 5.08% | 1.79% | |||
Figure 7Forecast results of MMCCSVR compared with those of other methods from 4 May to 3 June 2018.
Percentage of relative error of different methods. BP: Back-propagation.
| Day | MMCCSVR | SVR | BP |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 May | 0.70 | 9.17 | 26.81 |
| 5 May | −3.13 | −3.88 | −25.81 |
| 6 May | −4.10 | 14.59 | 27.14 |
| 7 May | 10.38 | 11.60 | 13.49 |
| 8 May | 0.00 | −0.12 | 0.06 |
| 9 May | −0.43 | 1.54 | 2.64 |
| 10 May | 0.79 | 4.21 | 17.74 |
| 11 May | 0.91 | −4.80 | −42.53 |
| 12 May | 0.54 | −1.73 | 1.49 |
| 13 May | −0.48 | −3.81 | −11.05 |
| 14 May | 9.89 | 11.78 | 13.64 |
| 15 May | −0.70 | 6.12 | 4.89 |
| 16 May | 0.01 | 5.42 | −8.01 |
| 17 May | 0.18 | 7.59 | 5.22 |
| 18 May | 0.00 | 4.58 | 1.04 |
| 19 May | −2.76 | −10.57 | −16.71 |
| 20 May | −0.10 | −7.06 | −7.08 |
| 21 May | −1.22 | 4.11 | 21.46 |
| 22 May | −1.30 | −9.77 | −15.16 |
| 23 May | 0.32 | −5.46 | −10.99 |
| 24 May | −0.69 | −6.04 | −6.78 |
| 25 May | −0.41 | −3.94 | 1.95 |
| 26 May | 0.53 | −13.44 | −9.73 |
| 27 May | −5.79 | −10.54 | −5.53 |
| 28 May | 0.00 | −5.42 | 6.09 |
| 29 May | −3.17 | −4.34 | 1.30 |
| 30 May | −0.06 | −7.40 | −5.79 |
| 31 May | 0.43 | −6.56 | −6.13 |
| 1 June | 5.51 | −12.45 | −11.81 |
| 2 June | 0.58 | −7.79 | −1.61 |
| 3 June | −0.48 | −6.56 | 1.96 |
| MAPE | 1.79% | 6.84% | 10.70% |
Figure 8Relative error of MMCCSVR with different inputs compared with other methods from 4 May to 3 June 2018.
Comparison of electricity consumption forecasting (ECF) accuracy. MAPE: mean absolute percentage error, MAE: mean absolute error, RMSE: root-mean-square error, R2: coefficient of determination.
| Method | MAPE | MAE | RMSE | R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMCCSVR | 1.79% | 875.8387 | 1515.228 | 0.9781 |
| MMCCSVR | 5.08% | 2582.8387 | 2836.0348 | 0.9150 |
| SVR | 6.84% | 3460.8710 | 3951.0136 | 0.9304 |
| BP | 10.70% | 5220.8065 | 6957.5602 | 0.3541 |
Figure 9Forecast results of MMCCSVR for a mall from 26 August to 31 December 2018.
Figure 10Relative error of MMCCSVR for different inputs compared with those of other methods from 26 August to 31 December 2018.
Forecast results of MMCCSVR for a mall from 26 August to 31 December 2018.
| Method | MAPE | MAE | RMSE | R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMCCSVR | 3.86% | 1528.2 | 2289.7 | 0.9846 |
| SVR | 13.78% | 3966.4375 | 6180.0521 | 0.9173 |
| BP | 10.43% | 3123.5748 | 3978.9582 | 0.9481 |