A comprehensive evaluation of prediction techniques and their influence on model predictive control in smart energy storage systems

IF 5 Q2 ENERGY & FUELS
Ulrich Ludolfinger , Thomas Hamacher , Maren Martens
{"title":"A comprehensive evaluation of prediction techniques and their influence on model predictive control in smart energy storage systems","authors":"Ulrich Ludolfinger ,&nbsp;Thomas Hamacher ,&nbsp;Maren Martens","doi":"10.1016/j.segy.2025.100202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The increasing share of intermittent renewable energy calls for intelligent building energy management systems to maintain grid stability. A widely used method for operating on-site storage is model predictive control (MPC), whose effectiveness heavily depends on forecast accuracy. This paper systematically evaluates the impact of prediction models on MPC performance in smart energy storage systems (SESS). Using a three-year, multi-building dataset with 15 min resolution, we compare five forecasting methods, linear model, XGBoost, RNN, TimeMixer, and TimesNet, for load, PV generation, and electricity price prediction. While XGBoost achieves the lowest mean squared error (MSE) and yields the highest revenue gain of 104% over a no-storage baseline during a four-month winter–spring test period, other models reveal a mismatch between forecast accuracy and control performance. Notably, the linear model, ranking mostly lowest in MSE, delivers the third-highest revenue (73%), nearly on par with the second best (79%). This illustrates that prediction accuracy alone is not a reliable proxy for control quality. Even the best realistic setup remains far from the ideal benchmark using perfect forecasts (235% gain). Daily retraining improves some models substantially (linear model to 105%) but has limited effect on others (XGBoost to 107%). These findings emphasize three key insights: (1) standard metrics like MSE may misrepresent the utility of forecasts for control, (2) errors across multiple inputs compound degradation in MPC, and (3) frequent retraining can mitigate losses. Overall, the results underscore the importance of robust forecasting and carefully chosen loss functions in the smart energy systems concept.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":34738,"journal":{"name":"Smart Energy","volume":"20 ","pages":"Article 100202"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Smart Energy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666955225000309","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The increasing share of intermittent renewable energy calls for intelligent building energy management systems to maintain grid stability. A widely used method for operating on-site storage is model predictive control (MPC), whose effectiveness heavily depends on forecast accuracy. This paper systematically evaluates the impact of prediction models on MPC performance in smart energy storage systems (SESS). Using a three-year, multi-building dataset with 15 min resolution, we compare five forecasting methods, linear model, XGBoost, RNN, TimeMixer, and TimesNet, for load, PV generation, and electricity price prediction. While XGBoost achieves the lowest mean squared error (MSE) and yields the highest revenue gain of 104% over a no-storage baseline during a four-month winter–spring test period, other models reveal a mismatch between forecast accuracy and control performance. Notably, the linear model, ranking mostly lowest in MSE, delivers the third-highest revenue (73%), nearly on par with the second best (79%). This illustrates that prediction accuracy alone is not a reliable proxy for control quality. Even the best realistic setup remains far from the ideal benchmark using perfect forecasts (235% gain). Daily retraining improves some models substantially (linear model to 105%) but has limited effect on others (XGBoost to 107%). These findings emphasize three key insights: (1) standard metrics like MSE may misrepresent the utility of forecasts for control, (2) errors across multiple inputs compound degradation in MPC, and (3) frequent retraining can mitigate losses. Overall, the results underscore the importance of robust forecasting and carefully chosen loss functions in the smart energy systems concept.
智能储能系统预测技术及其对模型预测控制的影响
间歇性可再生能源的份额不断增加,需要智能建筑能源管理系统来维持电网的稳定。模型预测控制(MPC)是一种应用广泛的现场存储操作方法,其有效性在很大程度上取决于预测精度。本文系统地评估了预测模型对智能储能系统(SESS)中MPC性能的影响。使用15分钟分辨率的三年多建筑数据集,我们比较了五种预测方法,线性模型,XGBoost, RNN, TimeMixer和TimesNet,用于负荷,光伏发电和电价预测。在为期四个月的冬春测试期间,XGBoost实现了最低的均方误差(MSE),并在无存储基线的情况下获得了104%的最高收益,但其他模型显示,预测精度与控制性能之间存在不匹配。值得注意的是,线性模型虽然在MSE中排名最低,但却提供了第三高的收入(73%),几乎与第二高的收入(79%)持平。这说明预测精度本身并不是控制质量的可靠代表。即使是最现实的设定,也与使用完美预测(235%的涨幅)的理想基准相差甚远。每天的再训练大大提高了一些模型(线性模型提高到105%),但对其他模型的影响有限(XGBoost提高到107%)。这些发现强调了三个关键的见解:(1)像MSE这样的标准指标可能会歪曲预测对控制的效用;(2)MPC中多个输入的复合退化误差;(3)频繁的再训练可以减轻损失。总的来说,结果强调了在智能能源系统概念中稳健预测和精心选择损失函数的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Smart Energy
Smart Energy Engineering-Mechanical Engineering
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
73 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信