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
+0已有论文修订
+93新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-16 01:34 · 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 2026-11-15 05:23 — 2026-11-16 05:23(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:2026-11-16 01:34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 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-16 01:33(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.04354

Large Language Models for Forecasting of Electricity Price Spikes

Liang Lin, Jianguo Zhu, Gang Lei, Allen Wang, Xin Lu

原文摘要

Can market notices read by a large language model (LLM) improve short-horizon electricity price spike forecasts? We study five regions of Australia's National Electricity Market. A local LLM extracted features once per notice, only notices visible at the forecast origin were used, and a gradient-boosting model produced onset probabilities. In an out-of-sample development back-test (July 2022 to July 2024), notice features did not lower the 60-minute Brier score of a numeric model including the market operator's next-hour forecasts. At 24 hours they did, but rule-based features did so almost equally and attribution to notice content was not established. A locally frozen protocol, not publicly deposited, governed a retrospective single-use holdout from 15 August to 17 October 2026. At 60 minutes, the hypothesis that LLM features lower the numeric model's Brier score was not established (H1; relative Brier skill -0.09%), so the planned comparison with rule-based features was not tested (H2). At 24 hours, the hypothesis that LLM features lower the score against a text-free control was not established (H3; +0.37%, 95% CI [-9.74, 1.39], inconclusive). By the frozen wording rule the non-significant 24-hour improvement comes mainly from recalibration and cannot be attributed to notice content, although post hoc the decomposition could not separate recalibration from resolution. The 24-hour base rate was 1.56% on the holdout against 14.0% in development. With 5 onsets on 3 days and 24-hour positives in 2 of 22 three-day blocks, the holdout neither established nor excluded a 24-hour effect.

eess.SY · cs.AI