Cross-Market Meta-Learning for Electricity Price Forecasting
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
The paper presents a comparative study of six deep learning models—state-space, MLP, RNN, and Transformer-based architectures—for cross-border electricity price forecasting using publicly available data. It focuses on generalization across markets and evaluates performance under low-data target-market conditions (zero-shot, one-shot, few-shot) with a standardized dataset for the Germany‑Luxembourg bidding zone in 2024. Results show that N‑HiTS and NBEATSx perform competitively in limited‑data scenarios, while transformer models achieve comparable accuracy but require more adaptation and tuning, and that careful feature selection and hyperparameter tuning improve performance.
arXiv:2609.23223v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Day-ahead electricity price forecasts support trading and storage decisions, but for battery arbitrage predicting intraday price spreads is more rele...
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 st...
arXiv:2608. 11359v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Electricity price forecasting is crucial for market participants but remains difficult because prices are volatile, market-specific, and closely tied to anticipated system conditions.
Electricity price forecasting is crucial for market participants but remains difficult because prices are volatile, market-specific, and closely tied to anticipated system conditions. Existing supervised methods depend largely on market-specific historical data, limiting their use in newly established or data-scarce markets.
The study evaluates nine foundation model variants against two leading electricity price forecasting benchmarks across Germany, Poland, and Spain for 2021‑2025. Only the TabPFN models consistently outperform the benchmarks in both point and probabilistic accuracy, yet their economic advantage varies with bidding strategy and risk tolerance. The results indicate that foundation models cannot universally replace market‑specific models; their usefulness depends on the chosen architecture and the particular decision problem.