Enhancing Power System Flexibility Using AI‐Based Forecasting Techniques: A Comparative Study

ABSTRACT This paper compares seven forecasting models for hourly electricity consumption in a commercial office building using data spanning 2024–2025. Models include XGBoost, LSTM, GRU, 1D‐CNN, SARIMA, Prophet, and Seasonal Naive baseline. Features encompass temporal indicators (hour, day of week, month), autoregressive lags (1, 2, 24, 168 h), and rolling statistics. Evaluation uses Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) on a 14‐day test set (336 samples) with rigorous hyperparameter tuning via GridSearchCV and TimeSeriesSplit cross‐validation. XGBoost achieves superior performance (MAE 6.29 kW, 3.5% MAPE) compared to GRU (10.95 kW), 1D‐CNN (11.86 kW), LSTM (14.98 kW), Seasonal Naive (16.15 kW), Prophet (35.72 kW), and SARIMA (48.16 kW). Paired t‐tests confirm statistical significance: XGBoost versus GRU () and versus Seasonal Naive (). Surprisingly, deep learning models underperformed gradient boosting despite theoretical sequence‐modeling advantages, attributed to modest sample size (17,016), rich feature engineering capturing 69.5% of variance through autoregressive features, and single‐hour forecasting horizon. Classical statistical models exhibited catastrophic failures, reflecting inadequate modeling of non‐stationary, non‐linear building consumption with multiple seasonal patterns. Results demonstrate that for structured tabular time series with comprehensive feature engineering, gradient boosting substantially outperforms sequential neural architectures and classical statistical methods. The findings enable high‐confidence building energy management decisions (HVAC pre‐conditioning, demand response) with ±6.3 kW prediction accuracy. Code and reproducibility documentation are available at https://github.com/SaadHayat91/BEJ-Electricity-Forecasting .

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Battery energy
Published
2025-12-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/bte2.70079
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Energy Load and Power Forecasting
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.46
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Enhancing Power System Flexibility Using AI‐Based Forecasting Techniques: A Comparative Study

Zahid Javid, Ehtasham Mustafa, William Holderbaum, Aamir Nawaz et al.
2 citations
Battery energy
Energy Load and Power Forecasting
1.46
article

Enhancing Power System Flexibility Using AI‐Based Forecasting Techniques: A Comparative Study

Zahid Javid, Ehtasham Mustafa, William Holderbaum, Aamir Nawaz, Saad Hayat, Aftab Ahmed Almani
article en
2 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT This paper compares seven forecasting models for hourly electricity consumption in a commercial office building using data spanning 2024–2025. Models include XGBoost, LSTM, GRU, 1D‐CNN, SARIMA, Prophet, and Seasonal Naive baseline. Features encompass temporal indicators (hour, day of week, month), autoregressive lags (1, 2, 24, 168 h), and rolling statistics. Evaluation uses Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) on a 14‐day test set (336 samples) with rigorous hyperparameter tuning via GridSearchCV and TimeSeriesSplit cross‐validation. XGBoost achieves superior performance (MAE 6.29 kW, 3.5% MAPE) compared to GRU (10.95 kW), 1D‐CNN (11.86 kW), LSTM (14.98 kW), Seasonal Naive (16.15 kW), Prophet (35.72 kW), and SARIMA (48.16 kW). Paired t‐tests confirm statistical significance: XGBoost versus GRU () and versus Seasonal Naive (). Surprisingly, deep learning models underperformed gradient boosting despite theoretical sequence‐modeling advantages, attributed to modest sample size (17,016), rich feature engineering capturing 69.5% of variance through autoregressive features, and single‐hour forecasting horizon. Classical statistical models exhibited catastrophic failures, reflecting inadequate modeling of non‐stationary, non‐linear building consumption with multiple seasonal patterns. Results demonstrate that for structured tabular time series with comprehensive feature engineering, gradient boosting substantially outperforms sequential neural architectures and classical statistical methods. The findings enable high‐confidence building energy management decisions (HVAC pre‐conditioning, demand response) with ±6.3 kW prediction accuracy. Code and reproducibility documentation are available at https://github.com/SaadHayat91/BEJ-Electricity-Forecasting .

Battery energyVol. 5(1)
Manchester Metropolitan University (GB), Gomal University (PK), University of Karachi (PK), Glasgow Caledonian University (GB)
Affordable and clean energy
Openalex Percentile: Top 14%
Energy Load and Power Forecasting
1.46
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.