跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

论文库

检索计算机领域论文,按研究方向、作者或关键词筛选。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+2已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-15 09:49 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-14 15:09各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-14 09:54 — 2026-11-15 09:54(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-15 09:49最近发现新增版本:2026-11-14 15:09库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-13 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

23,348 已收录论文19,580 AI 相关6,729 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 2 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-15 09:48(北京时间)
版本更新 · v2arXiv:2609.24609

GraphToolbox: A Configurable Framework for Controlled Benchmarking of Graph Neural Network Forecasting

Eloi Campagne, Yvenn Amara-Ouali, Yannig Goude, Argyris Kalogeratos

原文摘要

Electricity forecasting often involves spatially related signals observed over regions, substations, and feeders, and Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) represent these relations through a graph. Building a complete GNN forecasting experiment is nonetheless laborious, because graph construction, model selection, training, aggregation, and interpretation often require separate tools. We present GraphToolbox, an open-source Python framework that unifies these stages in one configuration-driven pipeline built on PyTorch Geometric. It offers data-driven graph construction, a single interface for most graph convolution operators of PyTorch Geometric and for recurrent graph cells, online expert aggregation, forecasting interpretability, and significance testing on forecasts. We use GraphToolbox to run a controlled benchmark: we compare architectural and modeling choices for French electricity load and net-load forecasting at regional and national levels under a common experimental protocol. On load, most evaluated graph convolutions outperform additive, recurrent, and foundation-model baselines. Pooled XGBoost, trained on the same inputs, has a lower RMSE than the best graph models, although the difference is not significant. Online expert aggregation and daily model updates improve accuracy further. On net-load, graph models outperform additive, recurrent, and XGBoost baselines, with further gains from forecasting the physical components separately. Statistical tests do not identify a single best convolution for load forecasting.

cs.LG · cs.AI

新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.35074

A Diagnostic Protocol for GNNs in Electricity Load Forecasting: Separating Parameter Sharing from Neighborhood Access

Eloi Campagne, Yvenn Amara-Ouali, Yannig Goude, Itai Zehavi, Argyris Kalogeratos

原文摘要

A graph neural network (GNN) forecasting a collection of load series combines two mechanisms, sharing parameters across series and reading neighboring series, and a gain over a non-graph model may come from either; telling them apart decides whether a graph is worth maintaining. We propose a model diagnostic protocol that compares the GNN with three reference models: a per-node network, a network shared across nodes without neighbors, and the same GNN without edges. Degree-preserving rewiring tests whether neighbor identity matters. After a tuned benchmark on regional load in France and on low-voltage feeders in the UK, we apply the protocol to deliberately short node histories, as when non-stationary demand leaves only recent observations relevant: the feeders, within one week, and a public dataset of client consumption series. On the feeders, sharing parameters recovers most of the error gap between node-specific models and GNNs, about two thirds against a regularized one. Adding the edges to an otherwise identical backbone brings a smaller gain, half or more of which disappears under rewiring. On the client series, the neighbor mean degrades the per-node model on the shorter window and the edges' gain is not consistently distinguishable from zero; on the regions of France, where each node's own history is already informative, the ranking between per-node models and GNNs changes with tuning. A synthetic study points to noisy local measurements as one regime where neighbors help. In an exploratory online aggregation, graph and non-graph forecasters appear complementary, and the weight assigned to GNNs is not proportional to their contribution. In none of the three datasets do the edges account for most of a GNN's advantage over node-specific models, so a forecasting gain should be credited to the graph only after comparison with per-node and shared references.

cs.AI