Page 25 - Contributed Paper Session (CPS) - Volume 2
P. 25

CPS1408 Caston S. et al.
            2.4 Forecast combination
                QRA is based on forecasting the response variable against the combined
            forecasts which are treated as independent variables. QRA was first introduced
            by  Nowotarski  and  Weron  ([10]).  Let  , be  hourly  electricity  demand  as
            discussed in Section 2.1 and let there be M methods used to predict the next
            observations of    which shall be denoted by  +1 ,  +2 , … ,  + . Using m =
                              ,
            1,...,M methods, the combined forecasts will be given by
                             
                 
                ̂ ,  =  + ∑  ̂ +  ,                                                                              (7)
                         0
                                        ,
                                   
                                 
                            =1

                                                                  
                where  ̂ ,  represents  forecasts  from  method  , ̂ ,   is  the  combined
            forecasts and  ,  is the error term. We seek to minimise
                                                          
                                  min ∑  (̂   −  − ∑  ̂ ).                    (8)
                                             
                                                               
                                                       0
                                                                  
                                              
                                         =1              =1

            3.  Empirical Result
             3.1 Forecasting results
                The  data  used  is  hourly  electricity  demand  from  1  January  2010  to  31
            December  2012  giving  us  n  =  26281  observations.  The  data  is  split  into
            training data, 1 January 2010 to 2 April 2012, i.e. n1 = 19708 and testing data,
            from 2 April 2012 to 31 December 2012, i.e. n2 = 6573, which is 25% of the
            total number of observations. The models considered are M1 (GAM), M2 (GAMI)

            which are GAM models without and with interactions respectively, and M3
            (AQR), M4 (AQRI) which are additive quantile regression models without and
            with interactions, respectively. The four models M1 to M4 are then combined
            based on the pinball losses, resulting in M5 and also combined using QRA,
            resulting in M6.
            3.2 Out of sample forecasts
                After correcting for residual autocorrelation we then use the model for out
            of sample forecasting (testing). A comparative analysis of the models given in
            Table 1 shows that M4 is the best model out of the four models, M1 to M4,
            based on the pinball loss. The average losses suffered by the models based on
            the  pinball  losses  are  given  in  Table  1  with  model  M6 having  the  smallest
            average pinball loss.
                 Table 1: Average pinball losses for M1 to M6 (2 April 2012 to 31 Dec 2012).
                                   M1        M2       M3       M4       M5       M6


               Average Pinball   284.363  258.087  274.768  249.842  229.723  222.584
               loss



                                                                14 | I S I   W S C   2 0 1 9
   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30