aiqbench analysis
This study provides a rigorous empirical benchmark of nine deep learning architectures for smart meter energy forecasting, offering critical insights into the trade-offs between prediction horizon, historical input length, and computational cost. The findings demonstrate that while Transformer-based models outperform classical baselines, lightweight alternatives often deliver comparable accuracy with significantly reduced complexity, particularly for shorter-term forecasts. These results are essential for practitioners aiming to optimize grid management systems without incurring unnecessary inference overhead.
An Empirical Benchmark of Deep Time-Series Models for Smart Meter Energy Forecasting
arXiv:2608.18675v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Accurate forecasting of energy consumption is important for the efficient operation of power systems, with direct implications for operational costs, energy management, and system maintenance. Due to the availability of extensive high-resolution consumption data from smart meters, data-driven methods have been used for short-term and long-term forecasting. However, their comparative performance on real-world smart meter data is still not well studied. In this paper, we present an empirical benchmark of nine modern deep learning models for time-series forecasting, including linear, MLP-based, convolutional, and Transformer architectures. We evaluate these models on two publicly available smart meter datasets. Our analysis focuses on three factors that strongly affect forecasting performance: the length of historical input, the prediction horizon, and the choice of model architecture. We show that extending the historical context improves accuracy, but only up to a saturation point, after which additional input provides limited benefit. In contrast, accuracy decreases as the prediction horizon increases. We also investigate the trade-off between prediction accuracy and computational complexity, and assess the statistical significance and practical magnitude of performance differences across models. Our results show that deep learning models consistently outperform classical baselines, while lightweight architectures achieve relatively similar performance at significantly lower computational cost. Additionally, architectural differences only become meaningful at longer forecasting horizons and on more heterogeneous datasets. Finally, a subgroup analysis across geodemographic and household categories shows that model choice has limited impact for most population segments.
Abstract:Accurate forecasting of energy consumption is important for the efficient operation of power systems, with direct implications for operational costs, energy management, and system maintenance. Due to the availability of extensive high-resolution consumption data from smart meters, data-driven methods have been used for short-term and long-term forecasting. However, their comparative performance on real-world smart meter data is still not well studied. In this paper, we present an empirical benchmark of nine modern deep learning models for time-series forecasting, including linear, MLP-based, convolutional, and Transformer architectures. We evaluate these models on two publicly available smart meter datasets. Our analysis focuses on three factors that strongly affect forecasting performance: the length of historical input, the prediction horizon, and the choice of model architecture. We show that extending the historical context improves accuracy, but only up to a saturation point, after which additional input provides limited benefit. In contrast, accuracy decreases as the prediction horizon increases. We also investigate the trade-off between prediction accuracy and computational complexity, and assess the statistical significance and practical magnitude of performance differences across models. Our results show that deep learning models consistently outperform classical baselines, while lightweight architectures achieve relatively similar performance at significantly lower computational cost. Additionally, architectural differences only become meaningful at longer forecasting horizons and on more heterogeneous datasets. Finally, a subgroup analysis across geodemographic and household categories shows that model choice has limited impact for most population segments.
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2608.18675 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2608.18675v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.18675 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 329 words
Related coverage

News
Quantum Computing Report · Jun 7, 2026

News
Quantum Computing Report · Jul 25, 2026

Jev: System One models for Prod, not God — with Diogo Almeida, CEO, TypeSafe AI
Latent Space · Sep 21, 2026

Microsoft’s AI chief says superintelligence is near, but won’t take your job
The Verge · Jun 8, 2026