Papers › An Empirical Benchmark of Deep Time-Series Models for Smart Meter Energy Forecasting
An Empirical Benchmark of Deep Time-Series Models for Smart Meter Energy Forecasting
Behnaz Kavoosighafi, Maria Eidenskog, Wiktoria Glad, Katerina Vrotsou
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
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.
In Syntology View this paper on Syntology: its repositories, every harvested function with whether it ran, its licence and the call to fetch it.
Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2608.18675")
Code
Syntology Ran 13 of 13 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · honoured contract; 12 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 13 samples from 1 repository, 13 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
13 samples harvested; 13 ran; 1 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-25; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 13 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from behnazkavoosi/Energy-Time-Series-Library. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
14b374fc9cf25339 · report
a16791e2fc073028 · report
489bd6cef8f516f5 · report
0458118a71d304b9 · report
2af0df7394e58e06 · report
592ea8b254b006db · report
2c88fa85214e7d48 · report
ef459726ef257947 · report
2b6fd75c6acd97d9 · report
9b32a3bb18b1cafe · report
1f71d273b7f9da7c · report
f849694f3be3c099 · report
d80521898a085cf9 · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2608.18675, was issued in August 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections