Impedance-Informed and Self-Adaptive Graph Neural Networks for Short-Term Load Forecasting in Industrial Distribution Networks

Graph neural networks are often applied to load forecasting on the assumption that electrically related meter points should be modeled jointly, but this is rarely tested against a graph-free control, and building the graph usually requires a network model that is not always available. We ask whether an impedance-informed graph—estimated directly from PT/CT voltage and current, with no topology model—improves short-term load forecasting beyond what the forecasting architecture achieves alone. We compare an impedance-informed ST-GCN against binary and correlation-based graphs, a self-adaptive learned graph, a graph-free (identity-adjacency) ST-GCN control, an LSTM baseline, and a persistence baseline, at two industrial facilities (six and nine buses), using chronological splits, five seeds, and Bonferroni-corrected significance testing. The result is conditional and architecture-dependent. At one site, LSTM significantly beat every ST-GCN variant, including the graph-free control, so the shortfall is architectural, not graph-specific. At the other, every ST-GCN variant beat LSTM at the conventional level (not after Bonferroni correction), and the impedance graph gave among the lowest RMSE (20.2% below an untuned LSTM, 13.1% below a tuned LSTM); however, the graph-free control alone captured most of this gain, and impedance’s further improvement over it was not significant. Lagged cross-correlation, Granger-causality, and input-perturbation analyses corroborate this: the trained ST-GCN’s sensitivity tracks the impedance graph more closely than that of LSTM does, and a self-adaptive graph converges toward the impedance graph’s structure, with seed-to-seed variability, only where graph structure helps. Graph-based load forecasting is therefore not universally beneficial; most of its benefit traces to the sequence-modeling architecture rather than to any specific graph, and both claims should be checked against a graph-free control and corrected significance tests before deployment.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Energies
Published
2026-11-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/en19215255
Primary Topic
Energy Load and Power Forecasting
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Impedance-Informed and Self-Adaptive Graph Neural Networks for Short-Term Load Forecasting in Industrial Distribution Networks

Seunghyeon Park, 김용호
Energies
Energy Load and Power Forecasting
article

Impedance-Informed and Self-Adaptive Graph Neural Networks for Short-Term Load Forecasting in Industrial Distribution Networks

Seunghyeon Park, 김용호
article en

Abstract

Graph neural networks are often applied to load forecasting on the assumption that electrically related meter points should be modeled jointly, but this is rarely tested against a graph-free control, and building the graph usually requires a network model that is not always available. We ask whether an impedance-informed graph—estimated directly from PT/CT voltage and current, with no topology model—improves short-term load forecasting beyond what the forecasting architecture achieves alone. We compare an impedance-informed ST-GCN against binary and correlation-based graphs, a self-adaptive learned graph, a graph-free (identity-adjacency) ST-GCN control, an LSTM baseline, and a persistence baseline, at two industrial facilities (six and nine buses), using chronological splits, five seeds, and Bonferroni-corrected significance testing. The result is conditional and architecture-dependent. At one site, LSTM significantly beat every ST-GCN variant, including the graph-free control, so the shortfall is architectural, not graph-specific. At the other, every ST-GCN variant beat LSTM at the conventional level (not after Bonferroni correction), and the impedance graph gave among the lowest RMSE (20.2% below an untuned LSTM, 13.1% below a tuned LSTM); however, the graph-free control alone captured most of this gain, and impedance’s further improvement over it was not significant. Lagged cross-correlation, Granger-causality, and input-perturbation analyses corroborate this: the trained ST-GCN’s sensitivity tracks the impedance graph more closely than that of LSTM does, and a self-adaptive graph converges toward the impedance graph’s structure, with seed-to-seed variability, only where graph structure helps. Graph-based load forecasting is therefore not universally beneficial; most of its benefit traces to the sequence-modeling architecture rather than to any specific graph, and both claims should be checked against a graph-free control and corrected significance tests before deployment.

EnergiesVol. 19(21)
Korea Electronics Technology Institute (KR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 25%
Energy Load and Power Forecasting
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.

Laika access coming soon
Impedance-Informed and Self-Adaptive Graph Neural Networks for Short-Term Load Forecasting in Industrial Distribution Networks — Seunghyeon Park, 김용호 · Energies (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS