Monthly electricity consumption prediction using machine learning with LLM-assisted data integration


Abstract

Background . The continuous increase in electricity demand and variability in consumption patterns make it difficult to maintain the supply-demand balance in energy systems, posing significant risks in terms of economic efficiency and sustainability. Therefore, research aimed at accurately prediction energy demand is critical to supporting the efficient management of energy resources and preventing potential supply bottlenecks.
Methods . This study conducted a comprehensive comparative analysis using a total of six algorithms from statistical regression, ensemble learning, and deep learning approaches to model and prediction electricity demand. LLM-based text processing methods were applied to transform data from different sources into a comprehensive dataset. The performance of the models was comprehensively evaluated using the R², Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Mean Squared Error (MSE), and Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) metrics to assess prediction accuracy and error levels.
Results . The results obtained show that ensemble learning models have higher prediction accuracy and lower error rates. When examining the R² values of model performance, Random Forest and CatBoost stood out as the most effective methods for electricity consumption prediction. However, LSTM and ANN showed superior performance but did not reach the accuracy level of ensemble models. Furthermore, the metric values also support the performance ranking, emphasizing the importance of model selection and hyperparameter optimization on prediction accuracy.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].