Papers for
energy forecasters
Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.
State-matched prediction improves uncertainty estimates in recurring conditions
State-Matched Sequence Conformal Prediction
Abstract: Sequential conformal prediction needs to decide which past errors should calibrate uncertainty for the current target. Recency and online error feedback are useful when recent observations remain relevant, but the recent past can be a poor reference when comparable states recur at nonadjacent times, with the recurrence pattern generally unknown. We propose State-Matched Sequence Conformal Prediction (SMSCP), which constructs an explicit one-sided local-linear state from pre-target information, uses state similarity to select a matched reference set of past calibration scores, and then applies the ordinary unweighted conformal order statistic. In contrast to existing approaches, SMSCP uses state similarity to identify calibration observations relevant to the target score quantile. This motivates a theoretical analysis of whether nearby states have comparable target score quantiles under temporal dependence. We establish control of the resulting conformal cutoff and characterize predictive information not captured by the chosen state. Simulations show that state matching is most effective when score-relevant states recur across nonadjacent times, while revealing settings in which its advantage weakens or reverses. Across solar irradiance and bike-demand benchmarks, SMSCP improves interval score over recency, weighted, adaptive, and HopCPT comparators, and achieves coverage closer to the nominal 0.90 level than ResCP on five of six benchmarks.
Forecast combination method controls risks and improves accuracy
Downside-Controlled Online Forecast Combination under Delayed and Revised Outcomes
Abstract: Post-hoc correction adjusts a forecaster that cannot be retrained, such as a foundation model, but a correction fitted where errors are stable can hurt where they shift. We aim for downside control: not much worse than the starting forecast. We combine the frozen forecaster, a static corrector and an online corrector on the simplex, using only losses that mature after the horizon. Across seven benchmarks and four base models, two of them foundation models, the worst deterioration over 28 pairs at the main horizon is 0.15% and gains reach 11.5%. On day-ahead load for seven European bidding zones it lowers mean MSE in all seven zones, while single correctors raise mean MSE by up to 102% where the published forecast is most accurate. Three empirical conditions on expert speed, stream length and outcome alignment, each fixed by a documented failure, delimit its scope. Learning from the provisional outcome improves four zones on the settled one; learning on the settled outcome restores all seven.