Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 6, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Public redispatch records provide empirical data for grid congestion forecasting, but delayed reporting, zero-inflated distributions, and temporal shift present major modeling challenges. We assess the accuracy and reliability of probabilistic machine-learning forecasts using published German transmission records under experimentally imposed information-age constraints. The benchmark evaluates eight daily series of upward and downward intervention energy across four German transmission system operators from 2021 to 2024 (48,242 eligible records; 354 evaluation dates in 2024). We compare seasonal empirical, regularized autoregressive (ARX), quantile LightGBM, GRU, and Transformer models under a minimum seven-day target-latency constraint. Neural architectures use a zero-censored output head to accommodate exact-zero outcomes. Static, rolling, and adaptive delayed-feedback calibration are evaluated using normalized weighted interval score (nWIS), empirical coverage, and block-bootstrap inference. Raw LightGBM achieved nWIS 0.7952, outperforming ARX (1.0604) and the seasonal baseline (0.8739) by 25.0% and 9.0%, respectively (Holm-adjusted p<0.005). Rolling calibration improved LightGBM to nWIS 0.7767 versus 0.8251 for static calibration (p=0.0092), with 91.81% coverage for nominal 90% intervals. The zero-censored Transformer achieved nWIS 0.8161, with no significant difference from LightGBM (p=0.260). However, aggregate coverage concealed substantial undercoverage during high-volume interventions (61.91% coverage among above-threshold events). These results show that boosted-tree models with rolling calibration provide accurate probabilistic forecasts of aggregate redispatch volumes under target delays, while nominal aggregate validity does not ensure reliability during extreme congestion events.