Skip to content
aiqbench takeMachine Learning

aiqbench analysis

This study addresses the critical lack of standardized benchmarks in electricity price forecasting by evaluating six deep learning architectures across diverse market settings, including low-data transfer scenarios like zero-shot and few-shot learning. The findings indicate that while Transformer-based models offer comparable accuracy to state-of-the-art alternatives such as N-HiTS and NBEATSx, they often demand significantly more tuning resources, suggesting a trade-off between performance portability and computational efficiency for practitioners.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Deep Learning for Cross-Border Electricity Price Forecasting: A Comparative Study

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2608.17091v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While publicly available electricity market data presents a valuable resource for forecasting research, the field lacks established benchmark datasets for standardized comparison. As a result, many studies have relied on different datasets and metrics to evaluate methods in isolated settings, making it difficult to assess progress and compare state-of-the-art approaches consistently. In this work, we use public data to evaluate deep learning models for electricity price forecasting (EPF) across multiple market settings. Our goal is to establish a reproducible framework that enables a consistent evaluation of forecasting models. Although deep learning has been explored for day-ahead EPF, many prior studies are limited to single-market settings, narrow feature sets, or fixed training regimes. This work presents a comparative evaluation of six deep learning models--covering state-space, MLP, RNN, and Transformer-based architectures--emphasizing generalization across markets. We simulate low-data target-market conditions using zero-shot, one-shot, and few-shot learning. Our test set focuses on the Germany-Luxembourg (DE-LU) bidding zone in 2024 using a standardized dataset with calendar, historical price, and market-derived features. Our findings suggest that N-HiTS and NBEATSx perform competitively in limited-data scenarios, while transformer-based models can reach comparable accuracy but tend to require more adaptation and tuning. Model performance also benefits from careful feature selection and hyperparameter tuning, and we note that the differences between the strongest models are often small.

Abstract:While publicly available electricity market data presents a valuable resource for forecasting research, the field lacks established benchmark datasets for standardized comparison. As a result, many studies have relied on different datasets and metrics to evaluate methods in isolated settings, making it difficult to assess progress and compare state-of-the-art approaches consistently. In this work, we use public data to evaluate deep learning models for electricity price forecasting (EPF) across multiple market settings. Our goal is to establish a reproducible framework that enables a consistent evaluation of forecasting models. Although deep learning has been explored for day-ahead EPF, many prior studies are limited to single-market settings, narrow feature sets, or fixed training regimes. This work presents a comparative evaluation of six deep learning models--covering state-space, MLP, RNN, and Transformer-based architectures--emphasizing generalization across markets. We simulate low-data target-market conditions using zero-shot, one-shot, and few-shot learning. Our test set focuses on the Germany-Luxembourg (DE-LU) bidding zone in 2024 using a standardized dataset with calendar, historical price, and market-derived features. Our findings suggest that N-HiTS and NBEATSx perform competitively in limited-data scenarios, while transformer-based models can reach comparable accuracy but tend to require more adaptation and tuning. Model performance also benefits from careful feature selection and hyperparameter tuning, and we note that the differences between the strongest models are often small.

Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2608.17091 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2608.17091v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.17091 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 · 311 words

Related coverage