An Analysis of Prediction Techniques for Model Predictive Control in Smart Energy Storage Systems

Increasing shares of intermittent renewable generation in the power grid require efficient building energy management solutions to preserve grid stability. A prominent approach for controlling on-site storage systems in such settings is Model Predictive Control (MPC), whose effectiveness depends significantly on forecast accuracy. In this paper, we systematically analyze which prediction methods are most suitable for building energy applications and how their quality affects MPC performance. We focus on three representative techniques: a linear model, the tree-based XGBoost algorithm, and TimeMixer, a state-of-the-art neural network architecture. Our findings show that specialized and carefully tuned neural networks can outperform more general-purpose methods such as XGBoost. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the mean squared error (MSE) alone is insufficient as a metric for training models intended for MPC use. Finally, we observe that prediction errors add up across multiple forecast horizons, leading to performance losses of more than one third, compared with perfect forecasts, when using an extensive multi-year, multi-building dataset. These insights underscore the need for robust forecasting and carefully selected loss functions in MPC-based smart energy storage systems.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Published
2025-06-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1109/powertech59965.2025.11180307
Primary Topic
Power Systems and Renewable Energy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

An Analysis of Prediction Techniques for Model Predictive Control in Smart Energy Storage Systems

Thomas Hamacher, Ulrich Ludolfinger, Maren Martens
Power Systems and Renewable Energy
article

An Analysis of Prediction Techniques for Model Predictive Control in Smart Energy Storage Systems

Thomas Hamacher, Ulrich Ludolfinger, Maren Martens
article en

Abstract

Increasing shares of intermittent renewable generation in the power grid require efficient building energy management solutions to preserve grid stability. A prominent approach for controlling on-site storage systems in such settings is Model Predictive Control (MPC), whose effectiveness depends significantly on forecast accuracy. In this paper, we systematically analyze which prediction methods are most suitable for building energy applications and how their quality affects MPC performance. We focus on three representative techniques: a linear model, the tree-based XGBoost algorithm, and TimeMixer, a state-of-the-art neural network architecture. Our findings show that specialized and carefully tuned neural networks can outperform more general-purpose methods such as XGBoost. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the mean squared error (MSE) alone is insufficient as a metric for training models intended for MPC use. Finally, we observe that prediction errors add up across multiple forecast horizons, leading to performance losses of more than one third, compared with perfect forecasts, when using an extensive multi-year, multi-building dataset. These insights underscore the need for robust forecasting and carefully selected loss functions in MPC-based smart energy storage systems.

University of Applied Sciences Landshut (DE), Technical University of Munich (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 69%
Power Systems and Renewable Energy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

An Analysis of Prediction Techniques for Model Predictive Control in Smart Energy Storage Systems — Thomas Hamacher, Ulrich Ludolfinger, et al. · (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS