Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates the impact of input uncertainty on probabilistic load forecasting in smart buildings, particularly when deploying models trained on high-frequency data with limited input features. By developing a unified one-day-ahead forecasting framework, the authors compare a modular post-hoc residual-quantile scheme with an integrated in-model quantile-learning approach across various deep learning architectures. The findings reveal that the choice of uncertainty placement significantly affects prediction accuracy, with the Temporal Fusion Transformer model achieving the best performance in terms of mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) and narrower prediction intervals compared to modular methods.
Integrated quantile learning with Temporal Fusion Transformers yields up to 3.6% MAPE and prediction intervals five times narrower than traditional methods, highlighting the critical role of uncertainty placement in load forecasting.
Smart-building load forecasters are often trained offline on dense, multivariate, high-frequency data, but deployment may provide only hourly, feature-limited inputs. Missing features must then be reconstructed, and their errors can propagate through the model. If this input uncertainty is not reflected, prediction intervals may become miscalibrated, affecting demand-response scheduling. Our work examines where uncertainty should be placed once inference inputs are reconstructed. We develop a unified one-day-ahead probabilistic forecasting framework that aligns temporal resolution, reconstructs the unavailable inputs, and derives causal features, and we compare a modular post-hoc residual-quantile scheme with an integrated in-model quantile-learning scheme. The comparison uses three mid-scale Deep Learning (DL) backbones: recurrent, hybrid recurrent, and attention-based Temporal Fusion Transformer (TFT) models, under identical inputs, forecasting horizon, preprocessing rules, and training budgets. Results show that uncertainty placement is backbone-dependent. Integrated quantile learning is most reliable with the TFT, yielding 2.2-3.6% MAPE and 28-83W RMSE on the labeled test window, while producing intervals about 5x narrower than the modular intervals at the closest-to-nominal coverage level. Diebold-Mariano tests support the TFT ranking and the mixed behavior of the recurrent backbones. A reconstruction-sensitivity test shows that reconstructed inputs increase the Quantile Score (QS) by 106% while interval width remains nearly unchanged, indicating that the model does not automatically absorb reconstruction-induced uncertainty. Robustness checks against non-DL baselines and seasonal hold-out weeks support this ranking. Our results expose the limits of post-hoc residual quantiles when inference depends on reconstructed inputs.