Comparing Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) and Bidirectional LSTM Deep Neural Networks for power consumption prediction

Authors: Davi Guimarães da Silva, Anderson Alvarenga de Moura Meneses

38 pages, in English, 13 figures and 13 tables
License: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2305.16546v1

  • Comprehensive Summary
  • Key points
  • Layman's Summary
  • Blog article
The study focuses on comparing two deep learning models, Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) and Bidirectional LSTM (BLSTM), for short-term forecasting of univariate electric consumption time series. The objective is to assess the robustness of these models by using four different datasets with varying contexts and scales. The datasets include the power consumption of a household in France, a university building in Santarém, Brazil, the Tétouan city zones in Morocco, and the aggregated electric demand in Singapore. To evaluate the performance of the models, several metrics such as Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE), and R-squared (R2) were calculated using a time series cross-validation scheme. Additionally, Friedman's test was applied to normalized RMSE results to determine if there is a statistically significant difference between LSTM and BLSTM. The results show that BLSTM outperforms LSTM with a statistically significant difference (p = 0.0455). This indicates that bidirectional weight updating significantly improves the performance of LSTM when dealing with different scales of electric power consumption. Furthermore, this study provides valuable insights into the application of deep learning models for electric consumption prediction and highlights the effectiveness of BLSTM compared to LSTM. It also emphasizes the importance of considering bidirectional weight updating in forecasting tasks related to energy efficiency and market dynamics.
AI-generated keywords: Deep Learning LSTM BLSTM Electric Consumption Forecasting

AI-generated Key Points

  • The study compares LSTM and BLSTM models for short-term forecasting of electric consumption time series.
  • Four different datasets with varying contexts and scales were used, including household power consumption in France, a university building in Brazil, city zones in Morocco, and aggregated electric demand in Singapore.
  • Performance evaluation metrics such as RMSE, MAE, MAPE, and R2 were calculated using time series cross-validation scheme.
  • Friedman's test was applied to normalized RMSE results to determine statistical significance between LSTM and BLSTM.
  • Results show that BLSTM outperforms LSTM with a statistically significant difference (p = 0.0455).
  • Bidirectional weight updating significantly improves the performance of LSTM when dealing with different scales of electric power consumption.
  • The study provides insights into the application of deep learning models for electric consumption prediction.
  • BLSTM is more effective compared to LSTM in this context.
  • Bidirectional weight updating is important for forecasting tasks related to energy efficiency and market dynamics.
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Abstract: Electric consumption prediction methods are investigated for many reasons such as decision-making related to energy efficiency as well as for anticipating demand in the energy market dynamics. The objective of the present work is the comparison between two Deep Learning models, namely the Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) and Bi-directional LSTM (BLSTM) for univariate electric consumption Time Series (TS) short-term forecast. The Data Sets (DSs) were selected for their different contexts and scales, aiming the assessment of the models' robustness. Four DSs were used, related to the power consumption of: (a) a household in France; (b) a university building in Santar\'em, Brazil; (c) the T\'etouan city zones, in Morocco; and (c) the Singapore aggregated electric demand. The metrics RMSE, MAE, MAPE and R2 were calculated in a TS cross-validation scheme. The Friedman's test was applied to normalized RMSE (NRMSE) results, showing that BLSTM outperforms LSTM with statistically significant difference (p = 0.0455), corroborating the fact that bidirectional weight updating improves significantly the LSTM performance concerning different scales of electric power consumption.

Submitted to arXiv on 26 May. 2023

Tools for this paper

Explain it differently 3 free rewrites left today
Export BibTeX · RIS (Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote) · Markdown (Notion, Obsidian) · Premium
Citation alerts Premium
Journal club Slides to present it Premium
For journalists Press kit and hype check Premium

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

Figures and plots

Ask about a figure by number or use its question button to request visual analysis. Up to two figures and four image panels per question. Values read from plots are approximate; check the original data.

AI assistant instructions?

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.