arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2604.23908cs.LGcs.SYeess.SY
收藏

用于澳大利亚全国电力市场的短期电价预测的机器学习和深度学习模型

Machine Learning and Deep Learning Models for Short Term Electricity Price Forecasting in Australia's National Electricity Market

School of Engineering, Computer & Mathematical Sciences, Auckland University of Technology (AUT)(奥克兰技术大学工程、计算机与数学科学学院);Department of Thermal Energy and Power Engineering, Yantai University(烟台大学热能与动力工程系);Department of Building Environment and Equipment, School of Civil Engineering, Hefei University of Technology(合肥工业大学土木工程学院建筑环境与设备系);Green Gold Energy Pty Ltd

Wei Lu, Jay Wang, Dingli Duan, Ding Mao, Caiyi Song, John Huang

AI总结:

本文比较了六种算法在澳大利亚电力市场价格预测中的表现,发现树模型在预测中表现更优,但所有模型的误差均较高,需进一步改进。

摘要:

短期电价预测在竞争性电力市场中至关重要,但电价序列表现出高波动性、不规则性和非平稳性。这种现象在澳大利亚全国电力市场南部地区尤为明显,高可再生能源渗透率驱动价格波动和频繁的负价格区间,而结构变化如向五分钟结算的过渡进一步复杂了预测。为应对这些挑战,本文开发了一个统一的基准框架。在相同的数据预处理、特征工程(包括滞后特征、滚动统计、循环时间编码等)和85%至15%的时间顺序训练测试分割下,系统比较了六种算法,包括AWMLSTM、CatBoost、GBRT、LSTM、LightGBM和SVR。结果表明,对于价格预测,基于树的模型,尤其是R平方值为0.88的GBRT,通常优于LSTM和SVR。然而,所有模型的平均绝对百分比误差均超过90%,且超过65%的GBRT预测的相对误差超过10%,这突显了价格预测的固有难度。对于需求预测,所有模型的表现显著优于价格预测。AWMLSTM和GBRT的R2值为0.96,平均绝对百分比误差低于32%,而GBRT有74.37%的样本在5%误差范围内,而LSTM和SVR在两项任务中的表现较差。未来改进应专注于混合模型如树加变压器、数据增强极端事件以及误差校正,以更好地捕捉价格峰值。

英文摘要:

Short term electricity price forecast is essential in competitive power markets, yet electricity price series exhibit high volatility, irregularity, and non-stationarity. This phenomenon is pronounced in the South Australian region of the National Electricity Market, where high renewable penetration drives price volatility and frequent negative price intervals, while structural changes such as the transition to five-minute settlement further complicate forecast. To address these challenges, this study develops a unified benchmark framework. Under identical data preprocessing, feature engineering with lag features, rolling statistics, cyclic temporal encodings, and so on, and an 85% to 15% chronological train test split, six algorithms are systematically compared, including AWMLSTM, CatBoost, GBRT, LSTM, LightGBM, and SVR. The results show that for price prediction, tree-based models, especially GBRT with an R squared value of 0.88, generally outperform LSTM and SVR. However, all models achieve a mean absolute percentage error above 90%, and more than 65% of GBRT predictions have relative errors above 10%, which highlights the inherent difficulty of price forecast. For demand prediction, all models perform substantially better than in price prediction. AWMLSTM and GBRT achieve an R2 value of 0.96 with mean absolute percentage error below 32%, and GBRT has 74.37% of samples within 5% error, while LSTM and SVR perform less accurately in both tasks. Future improvements should focus on hybrid models such as tree plus transformers, data augmentation for extreme events, and error correction to better capture price spikes.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑