Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Leveraging Hypernetworks and Learnable Kernels for Consumer Energy Forecasting Across Diverse Consumer Types

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A kernelized hypernetwork that writes LSTM weights is claimed to cut energy-forecast error across diverse consumer types.

desk verdict A solid, incremental hypernetwork architecture with broad evaluation, but the paper's universal-outperformance claim is flatly contradicted by its own Table VII. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05104 v1 pith:NFYYKUZ3 submitted 2025-02-07 cs.LG cs.AI

Muhammad Umair Danish , Katarina Grolinger This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords hypernetworksconsumerenergyforecastingloadLSTMlearnablekernelspolynomialkernelRBFdiversetypes
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Consumer energy forecasting has to cope with consumption patterns that differ sharply between, say, a student residence and a house with an electric vehicle, and standard deep learners often struggle when those patterns shift. This paper proposes HyperEnergy, a method in which a hypernetwork—a meta-network that outputs weights and biases—generates the parameters of an LSTM forecaster, after transforming the input through a learnable combination of polynomial and radial-basis-function kernels. The authors claim that, across ten datasets covering residences, detached homes, a home with EV charging, a townhouse, and commercial buildings, HyperEnergy achieves lower MAE, RMSE, and SMAPE than ten baselines including LSTM, AttentionLSTM, and transformers. If that claim holds, a single architecture could serve many consumer types without per-type model redesign, which is what the paper aims to establish.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the kernelized hypernetwork $H_k$: a meta-network that predicts the tensor $\Theta$ of LSTM weights and biases, rather than learning them by gradient descent on the LSTM itself. Its front end is the learnable adaptive kernel, defined as $K_o = \lambda(\alpha x r_j^T + c)^d + (1-\lambda)\exp(-\gamma\|x-r_j\|^2)$, a learned convex combination of modified polynomial and RBF kernels evaluated against learnable reference points $r_j$; $\lambda$ and the reference points are updated during training so the kernel can emphasize gradual trends or sudden spikes as the data demand. The parameter integration module then slices $\Theta$ into the shapes $[4u, kv+u]$ and $[4u]$ and assigns them to the LSTM gates directly, keeping the LSTM outside the gradient update. That mechanism is what the paper claims adapts one architecture to heterogeneous consumer types.

What would settle it

Run the same ten models on the same datasets over multiple random seeds and report the distribution of MAE, RMSE, and SMAPE; the paper's Table VII already shows AttentionLSTM at 2.50% SMAPE versus HyperEnergy's 2.82% on the office building and the transformer beating HyperEnergy on MAE and RMSE for the retail store, so a reader can check the universal claim directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the parameters of a forecasting LSTM need not be learned directly by backpropagation; they can be produced by a kernelized hypernetwork that sees the same input window. The hypernetwork maps the 24-hour input through a learnable adaptive kernel and fully connected layers, then emits a parameter tensor that a parameter integration module reshapes into the LSTM's four gates; the LSTM is assigned these parameters in a gradient-free way and only the hypernetwork is updated during training. The paper reports that this arrangement outperforms the ten baselines on most datasets, with particularly large gains on individual homes, and its ablation studies attribute the largest part of the improvement to the hypernetwork itself and a smaller part to the learnable kernel.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a single run per dataset and model, with hyperparameters grid-selected per dataset, is enough to show HyperEnergy consistently outperforms every baseline; the paper's own results for the office building, retail store, and manufacturing building already contest that premise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single HyperEnergy architecture, with per-dataset hyperparameter selection, can be trained for residences, detached homes, an EV-charging home, a townhouse, and commercial buildings without changing the model structure.
  • Because the LSTM is not updated by backpropagation, the hypernetwork carries all learned behaviour; if the paper's ablation is right, this re-routing of learning is the main source of the accuracy gain, with the learnable kernel contributing a smaller additional gain.
  • The learned mixing parameter $\lambda$ and reference points $r_j$ give a built-in knob for trading off smooth polynomial behaviour against spike-sensitive RBF behaviour on each consumer's data.
  • Practical deployment is plausible at the reported cost: training times between LSTM and transformer, and inference under roughly 0.2 minutes for an entire test set.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's own Table VII does not support the abstract's 'consistently outperformed' wording: AttentionLSTM has the lowest SMAPE on the office building and the transformer has lower MAE and RMSE on the retail store, so the evidence as printed supports 'best on most datasets' rather than universal superiority.
  • Because the reported comparisons use one run per dataset and model, the margin between HyperEnergy and the next-best method on several datasets is small enough that seed-to-seed variance could change the ranking; reporting distributions over seeds would make the claim testable.
  • The reference points and mixing weight $\lambda$ could be inspected per consumer to see whether spike-heavy homes push $\lambda$ toward the RBF term and smoother buildings toward the polynomial term, a diagnostic that would connect the mechanism to the data.
  • A natural extension, already signalled as future work, is transferring a trained kernelized hypernetwork between similar consumers; the learned kernels may carry reusable structure even if the LSTM weights themselves do not.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. HyperEnergy is a consumer energy forecasting method in which a hypernetwork with a learnable adaptive kernel—a convex combination of polynomial and RBF kernels—generates the LSTM parameters of a primary prediction network. The paper compares HyperEnergy against ten baselines on ten datasets spanning student residences, individual houses, and industrial/commercial buildings, using MAE, RMSE, and SMAPE for 24-hour-ahead forecasts. The central claim is that HyperEnergy consistently outperforms all ten baselines across all consumer types.

Significance. If the claimed universal superiority were established, the contribution would be practically relevant: a single forecasting architecture applicable to diverse consumers with improved accuracy over standard sequence models. The paper also provides ablation studies and a computational-time comparison, and the proposed kernelized hypernetwork idea is clearly described. However, the main claim as stated is contradicted by the paper's own Table VII, and the evaluation protocol (single run, no significance tests) does not support the 'consistently' wording. Thus the significance is conditional on a substantial correction of the claims and verification of the reported results.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, Section V.C, Table VII, Figure 12 caption, Section VI] The central claim that 'HyperEnergy consistently outperformed 10 other techniques' (Abstract) and that 'for all consumers, HyperEnergy achieves the lowest SMAPE' (Figure 12 caption) is contradicted by the results in Table VII. For the office building, AttentionLSTM has lower MAE (11.70 vs 13.33), RMSE (14.50 vs 17.16), and SMAPE (2.50% vs 2.82%) than HyperEnergy. For the retail store, the transformer has lower MAE (20.48 vs 22.22) and RMSE (24.48 vs 28.13); for the manufacturing building, the transformer has lower RMSE (51.87 vs 52.16). In addition, Section V.C states that for the medical clinic 'the transformer achieved the best results in terms of all three metrics,' but Table VII shows HyperEnergy with the best values on all three (MAE 5.98 vs 9.76, RMSE 9.36 vs 10.70, SMAPE 2.42% vs 3.65%). These are internal inconsistencies that refute the universal-superiority claim as printed. The abstract, Figure 12 caption, Section V.C narrative, and conclusion must be revised to describe HyperEnergy as competitive and usually best, and the office and retail results should be verified or explained.
  2. [Section IV.B, Tables V-VII] The evaluation relies on a single run per model/dataset after per-dataset grid search, with no seed averaging, confidence intervals, or significance tests. Many of the reported advantages are small (e.g., House 4 in Table VI: HyperEnergy MAE 0.27 vs LSTM 0.28; SMAPE 37.62% vs 39.75%), so the claim that HyperEnergy 'consistently' outperforms all baselines is not statistically supported. Please report mean and standard deviation over multiple random seeds and apply appropriate statistical comparisons (e.g., paired tests across test samples or across seeds), or explicitly qualify the results as single-run observations.
  3. [Section V.C] The sentence 'For the medical clinic, the transformer achieved the best results in terms of all three metrics' is the opposite of what Table VII reports: HyperEnergy obtains the lowest MAE (5.98 vs transformer 9.76), RMSE (9.36 vs 10.70), and SMAPE (2.42% vs 3.65%). One of the two sources is wrong; the numbers must be reconciled and re-checked, because the contradiction directly affects the conclusions drawn for the industrial/commercial group.
  4. [Section VI and Abstract] The conclusion states 'Across nine datasets, the proposed HyperEnergy outperformed 10 other forecasting approaches,' but the evaluation uses ten datasets (Table I: two residences, four houses, and four industrial/commercial buildings). The abstract also lists only residential consumer types while the paper includes industrial/commercial buildings. Please correct the dataset count and make the abstract's coverage description match the actual evaluation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV.A] The text says the models take 'the previous 24 hours of five features,' but the features listed in Section III.A are temperature, day of the year, day of the month, day of the week, hour of the day, and energy consumption, which are six. Please clarify the intended feature count.
  2. [Table III] Table III reports the selected hyperparameters for only the six residential datasets, while Section IV.B states that hyperparameter optimization was conducted 'for each dataset and each model.' The selected hyperparameters for the four industrial/commercial datasets are missing and should be provided.
  3. [Section III.A.2] Equations (7)-(11) use the notation W1·Ko + b1, but the shapes of W1, b1, and Ko are not defined; in particular, Ko as written is a sum of kernel evaluations over reference points, so its dimensionality relative to the sample dimension should be stated.
  4. [Section V.D] Table X reports an unbalanced number of opening parentheses in the first row (the 'HyperEnergy (Traditional RBF' row), and the closing parenthesis is missing; please fix this typographical error.
  5. [General] Throughout the paper, there are several typographical errors (e.g., 'archived' instead of 'achieved' in Section V.C, 'captioning' in Section VI, 'therms' in Section V.B, 'adaptation' for 'adoption' in Section II). A careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: HyperEnergy is an empirical architecture paper whose components and training objective are defined independently of the reported results.

full rationale

The paper does not present a derivation chain in which a fitted input is later relabeled as a prediction. Equations (4)-(6) define the learnable adaptive kernel as a combination of polynomial and RBF terms with learned reference points and a learned mixing parameter; Equations (11)-(16) define how the hypernetwork's output is sliced and assigned to the LSTM; Equations (17)-(18) are standard MAE/MSE losses. All learnable quantities, including the kernel reference points and mixing parameter, are optimized on the same training objective as the baselines, and the reported MAE/RMSE/SMAPE values are computed on held-out test sets. The ablation studies compare model variants on the same datasets rather than converting a fitted value into a claimed prediction. The paper's own Table VII contradicts the abstract's universal-superiority claim, and the medical-clinic sentence in Section V.C is inconsistent with the table, but these are factual/consistency issues, not circularity. Self-citations such as references [6], [20], [37], and [38] appear as related work or metric sources and are not load-bearing for the central empirical claim. No self-definitional step, no uniqueness argument imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation was found. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a set of per-dataset hyperparameters and architectural design choices rather than a derivation; the main unverified inputs are the evaluation protocol and the assumed benefit of the learnable kernel, not any new physical entity.

free parameters (5)
  • RBF kernel coefficient gamma = 1, 10, 5, 6, 2 per dataset (Table III)
    Selected per dataset by grid search to minimize validation loss; controls kernel spread in Eq. 5.
  • Polynomial degree d = 2 or 3 per dataset (Table III)
    Selected per dataset by grid search; the degree of the polynomial kernel in Eq. 4.
  • Kernel mixing weight lambda = Learned, not reported
    Learned during training to balance polynomial and RBF contributions in Eq. 6; final values are not reported.
  • Polynomial scale alpha and constant c = Not specified
    Appear in Eq. 4 but the paper does not state whether they are fixed, initialized, or learned.
  • Number of reference points N_r = Not specified
    The kernel is computed against N_r learnable reference points (Eq. 2); N_r is never given, so the model size is underspecified.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Gradients can flow from the prediction loss through the LSTM to the hypernetwork even though the LSTM weights are assigned in a 'gradient-free' manner (Eq. 14).
    Section III.D describes updating only hypernetwork parameters, but does not explain how backpropagation travels through the LSTM computation graph; standard autodiff can do this, but the paper treats it as a special property.
  • domain assumption The learnable kernel transformation into a higher-dimensional space improves forecasting for diverse consumers.
    Section III.A.1 postulates that the polynomial/RBF kernel combination captures both gradual and sudden changes; no independent evidence or analysis of when this helps is offered.
  • domain assumption Per-dataset grid search with early stopping gives fair, optimized baselines.
    Section IV.B asserts fair treatment, but baseline hyperparameter selections are not reported and no seed averaging is used.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Leveraging Hypernetworks and Learnable Kernels for Consumer Energy Forecasting Across Diverse Consumer Types." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NFYYKUZ3

@misc{pith2026250205104,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Leveraging Hypernetworks and Learnable Kernels for Consumer Energy Forecasting Across Diverse Consumer Types},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NFYYKUZ3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05104}
}
read the original abstract

Consumer energy forecasting is essential for managing energy consumption and planning, directly influencing operational efficiency, cost reduction, personalized energy management, and sustainability efforts. In recent years, deep learning techniques, especially LSTMs and transformers, have been greatly successful in the field of energy consumption forecasting. Nevertheless, these techniques have difficulties in capturing complex and sudden variations, and, moreover, they are commonly examined only on a specific type of consumer (e.g., only offices, only schools). Consequently, this paper proposes HyperEnergy, a consumer energy forecasting strategy that leverages hypernetworks for improved modeling of complex patterns applicable across a diversity of consumers. Hypernetwork is responsible for predicting the parameters of the primary prediction network, in our case LSTM. A learnable adaptable kernel, comprised of polynomial and radial basis function kernels, is incorporated to enhance performance. The proposed HyperEnergy was evaluated on diverse consumers including, student residences, detached homes, a home with electric vehicle charging, and a townhouse. Across all consumer types, HyperEnergy consistently outperformed 10 other techniques, including state-of-the-art models such as LSTM, AttentionLSTM, and transformer.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05104 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The proposed HyperEnergy, a deep learning technique, consists of three main components: (a) the kernelized hypernetwork, which contains learnable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Student Residence 1: energy consumption characterized by observable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Student Residence 2: energy consumption characterized by observable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: House 1 energy consumption 2021-03 2021-04 2021-05 2021-06 2021-07 2021-08 2021-09 Date 1 2 3 4 Energy (kWh) Training Validation Testing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: House 2 energy consumption 2021-03 2021-04 2021-05 2021-06 2021-07 2021-08 2021-09 Date 1 2 3 4 Energy (kWh) Training Validation Testing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: House 3 (with electric vehicle) energy consumption [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: House 4 (townhouse) energy consumption [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Ablation Study 1, Residence 2: HyperEnergy prediction with and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Ablation Study 1, House 2: HyperEnergy predictions with and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of HyperEnergy with best three approaches for each consumer. Note that the best approaches are not the same across the consumers, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Eia projects nearly 50% increase in world energy usage by 2050,

    U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Eia projects nearly 50% increase in world energy usage by 2050,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42342

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    (2022) 2030 climate & energy framework

    European Climate, Energy and Environment. (2022) 2030 climate & energy framework. [Online]. Available: https://climate.ec.europa.eu/ eu-action/climate-strategies-targets/2030-climate-energy-framework en

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Reliability improvements from the application of distribution automation technologies,

    U.S. Department of Energy, “Reliability improvements from the application of distribution automation technologies,” Tech. Rep. 3,

    work page

  4. [4]

    Application of decoupled ARMA model to modal identification of linear time- varying system based on the ICA and assumption of “short-time linearly varying

    T. Chen, G. Chen, W. Chen, S. Hou, Y . Zheng, and H. He, “Application of decoupled ARMA model to modal identification of linear time- varying system based on the ICA and assumption of “short-time linearly varying”,” Journal of Sound and Vibration , 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    A survey on deep learning methods for power load and renewable energy forecasting in smart microgrids,

    S. Aslam, H. Herodotou, S. M. Mohsin, N. Javaid, N. Ashraf, and S. Aslam, “A survey on deep learning methods for power load and renewable energy forecasting in smart microgrids,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Transformer-based model for electrical load forecasting,

    A. L’Heureux, K. Grolinger, and M. Capretz, “Transformer-based model for electrical load forecasting,” Energies, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Day-ahead building- level load forecasts using deep learning vs. traditional time-series tech- niques,

    M. Cai, M. Pipattanasomporn, and S. Rahman, “Day-ahead building- level load forecasts using deep learning vs. traditional time-series tech- niques,” Applied Energy, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Long-term forecasting with TiDE: Time-series dense encoder,

    A. Das, W. Kong, A. Leach, R. Sen, and R. Yu, “Long-term forecasting with TiDE: Time-series dense encoder,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08424, 2023

    arXiv 2023

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    A review of weight optimization techniques in recurrent neural networks,

    A. Alqushaibi, S. J. Abdulkadir, H. M. Rais, and Q. Al-Tashi, “A review of weight optimization techniques in recurrent neural networks,” in IEEE International Conf. on Computational Intelligence , 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Peak reduction and long term load forecasting for large residential communities including smart homes with energy storage,

    H. Gong, V . Rallabandi, M. L. McIntyre, E. Hossain, and D. M. Ionel, “Peak reduction and long term load forecasting for large residential communities including smart homes with energy storage,” IEEE Access, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Optimal real-time energy management in apartment building integrating microgrid with multizone hvac control,

    E. Rezaei and H. Dagdougui, “Optimal real-time energy management in apartment building integrating microgrid with multizone hvac control,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics , 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Short-term residential load forecasting based on LSTM recurrent neural network,

    W. Kong, Z. Y . Dong, Y . Jia, D. J. Hill, Y . Xu, and Y . Zhang, “Short-term residential load forecasting based on LSTM recurrent neural network,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , 2017

    2017

  5. [13]

    Deep- learning-based probabilistic forecasting of electric vehicle charging load with a novel queuing model,

    X. Zhang, K. W. Chan, H. Li, H. Wang, J. Qiu, and G. Wang, “Deep- learning-based probabilistic forecasting of electric vehicle charging load with a novel queuing model,” IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics , 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Forecasting residential energy consumption using support vector regressions,

    X. Zhang, K. Grolinger, and M. A. Capretz, “Forecasting residential energy consumption using support vector regressions,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Machine Learning and Appli- cations, Orlando, FL, USA , 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    Regression model-based short-term load forecasting for uni- versity campus load,

    M. Madhukumar, A. Sebastian, X. Liang, M. Jamil, and M. N. S. K. Shabbir, “Regression model-based short-term load forecasting for uni- versity campus load,” IEEE Access, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Light gradient boosting machine (lightgbm) to forecasting data and assisting the defrosting strategy design of refrigerators,

    C. Ni, H. Huang, and P. e. a. Cui, “Light gradient boosting machine (lightgbm) to forecasting data and assisting the defrosting strategy design of refrigerators,” International Journal of Refrigeration , 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    N-beats neural network for mid-term electricity load forecasting,

    B. N. Oreshkin, G. Dudek, , and E. Turkina, “N-beats neural network for mid-term electricity load forecasting,” Applied Energy, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    A new approach to seasonal energy consumption forecasting using temporal convolutional networks,

    A. K. Shaikh, A. Nazir, and K. et al., “A new approach to seasonal energy consumption forecasting using temporal convolutional networks,” Results in Engineering , 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    A comparison between ARIMA, LSTM, and GRU for time series forecasting,

    P. T. Yamak, L. Yujian, and P. K. Gadosey, “A comparison between ARIMA, LSTM, and GRU for time series forecasting,” in 2nd interna- tional conference on algorithms, computing and artificial intelligence , 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    Interval load forecasting for individual households in the presence of electric vehicle charging,

    R. Skala, M. A. T. Elgalhud, K. Grolinger, and S. Mir, “Interval load forecasting for individual households in the presence of electric vehicle charging,” Energies, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    Short-term electrical load forecasting using hybrid model of manta ray foraging optimization and support vector regression,

    S. Li, X. Kong, L. Yue, C. Liu, M. A. Khan, Z. Yang, and H. Zhang, “Short-term electrical load forecasting using hybrid model of manta ray foraging optimization and support vector regression,” Journal of Cleaner Production, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    A novel hybrid model for building heat load forecasting based on multivariate empirical modal decomposition,

    Y . Li, N. Zhu, and Y . Hou, “A novel hybrid model for building heat load forecasting based on multivariate empirical modal decomposition,” Building and Environment, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    AR-Net: A sim- ple auto-regressive neural network for time-series,

    O. Triebe, N. Laptev, and R. Rajagopal, “AR-Net: A sim- ple auto-regressive neural network for time-series,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.12436, 2019

    1911 arXiv

  17. [25]

    A hybrid short- term load forecasting approach for individual residential customer,

    X. Lin, R. Zamora, C. A. Baguley, and A. K. Srivastava, “A hybrid short- term load forecasting approach for individual residential customer,”IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery , 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Hy- permorph: Amortized hyperparameter learning for image registration,

    A. Hoopes, M. Hoffmann, B. Fischl, J. Guttag, and A. V . Dalca, “Hy- permorph: Amortized hyperparameter learning for image registration,” in International Conference on Information Processing in Medical Imaging, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    A ‘self-referential’weight matrix,

    J. Schmidhuber, “A ‘self-referential’weight matrix,” in International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks , 1993

    1993

  20. [28]

    Dhp: Differen- tiable meta pruning via hypernetworks,

    Y . Li, S. Gu, K. Zhang, L. Van Gool, and R. Timofte, “Dhp: Differen- tiable meta pruning via hypernetworks,” in 16th European Conference on Computer Vision , 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    Modular universal reparameteriza- tion: Deep multi-task learning across diverse domains,

    E. Meyerson and R. Miikkulainen, “Modular universal reparameteriza- tion: Deep multi-task learning across diverse domains,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Hypernetwork functional image representation,

    S. Klocek, Ł. Maziarka, M. Wołczyk, J. Tabor, J. Nowak, and M. ´Smieja, “Hypernetwork functional image representation,” in International Con- ference on Artificial Neural Networks , 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Hypergan: A generative model for diverse, performant neural networks,

    N. Ratzlaff and L. Fuxin, “Hypergan: A generative model for diverse, performant neural networks,” in International Conference on Machine Learning, 2019. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY , VOL. 40, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2025 13

    2019

  24. [32]

    HyperRS: Hypernetwork-based recommender system for the user cold-start problem,

    Y . Lu, K. Nakamura, and R. Ichise, “HyperRS: Hypernetwork-based recommender system for the user cold-start problem,” IEEE Access , 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Differential privacy in hypernetworks for personalized federated learning,

    V . Nemala, P. Lai, and N. Phan, “Differential privacy in hypernetworks for personalized federated learning,” in 32nd ACM International Con- ference on Information and Knowledge Management , 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    SVM kernel based on particle swarm optimized vector and bayesian optimized SVM in atmospheric particulate matter forecasting,

    G. N. Kouziokas, “SVM kernel based on particle swarm optimized vector and bayesian optimized SVM in atmospheric particulate matter forecasting,” Applied Soft Computing , 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Searching for activation functions,

    P. Ramachandran, B. Zoph, and Q. V . Le, “Searching for activation functions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.05941 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  28. [36]

    The building data genome project 2, energy meter data from the ASHRAE great energy predictor III competition,

    C. Miller, A. Kathirgamanathan, and P. et al., “The building data genome project 2, energy meter data from the ASHRAE great energy predictor III competition,” Scientific Data

  29. [37]

    Asynchronous adaptive federated learning for distributed load forecasting with smart meter data,

    M. Fekri, K. Grolinger, and S. Mir, “Asynchronous adaptive federated learning for distributed load forecasting with smart meter data,” Interna- tional Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems , 2023, accepted

    2023

  30. [38]

    Transformer-based model for electrical load forecasting,

    A. L’Heureux, K. Grolinger, and M. A. Capretz, “Transformer-based model for electrical load forecasting,” Energies, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    Effectiveness of learning rate in dementia severity prediction using VGG16,

    F. A. Torghabeh, Y . Modaresnia, and M. M. Khalilzadeh, “Effectiveness of learning rate in dementia severity prediction using VGG16,” Biomed- ical Engineering: Applications, Basis and Communications , 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    On weight initialization in deep neural networks,

    S. K. Kumar, “On weight initialization in deep neural networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.08863, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Multi-task short-term reactive and active load forecasting method based on attention-lstm model,

    J. Qin, Y . Zhang, S. Fan, X. Hu, Y . Huang, Z. Lu, and Y . Liu, “Multi-task short-term reactive and active load forecasting method based on attention-lstm model,” International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    Short term electricity load forecasting using hybrid prophet-lstm model optimized by bpnn,

    T. Bashir, C. Haoyong, M. F. Tahir, and Z. Liqiang, “Short term electricity load forecasting using hybrid prophet-lstm model optimized by bpnn,” Energy reports, 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    Methods of forecasting electric energy consumption: A literature review,

    R. V . Klyuev, I. D. Morgoev, A. D. Morgoeva, O. A. Gavrina, N. V . Martyushev, E. A. Efremenkov, and Q. Mengxu, “Methods of forecasting electric energy consumption: A literature review,” Energies, 2022. VII. B IOGRAPHY SECTION Muhammad Umair Danish Muhammad Umair Danish is a ...

    2022

  36. [2012]

    Available: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/ 10/f33/Distribution Reliability Report - Final Dec 2012.pdf

    [Online]. Available: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/ 10/f33/Distribution Reliability Report - Final Dec 2012.pdf

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.