Advanced Strategies for the Enefit Kaggle Competition: Data

Augmentation, Modeling, and Ensembling

I. Introduction
Purpose: The Enefit - Predict Energy Behavior of Prosumers Kaggle competition
presents a significant challenge: accurately forecasting the electricity production and
consumption patterns of prosumers (consumers who also produce energy, primarily
via solar panels) in Estonia.1 The core objective is to minimize energy imbalance costs,
which arise from discrepancies between forecasted and actual energy flows.3
Prosumer behavior introduces substantial variability and unpredictability into the grid,
making accurate forecasting crucial for operational efficiency, grid stability, and
sustainable energy integration.3 The increasing number of prosumers amplifies this
challenge.3

Context: While gradient boosting models like XGBoost serve as powerful baselines for
such tabular and time-series forecasting tasks, achieving a competitive edge often
necessitates exploring techniques beyond standard approaches. This report
addresses the need for advanced strategies, specifically focusing on enhancing the
available training data through augmentation and synthetic generation, exploring
alternative and potentially more powerful modeling architectures, and leveraging
ensemble methods to boost predictive performance. The aim is to provide an
expert-level guide tailored to the nuances of the Enefit competition, offering
actionable strategies for participants seeking to improve their model accuracy.

Scope: This report delves into several key areas. It begins by defining time series data
augmentation, outlining its goals and inherent challenges. Common augmentation
techniques and generative models for creating synthetic data are then discussed,
followed by an evaluation of their applicability to the specific data structures within
the Enefit competition. Subsequently, the report explores advanced forecasting
models beyond XGBoost, including other Gradient Boosting Machines (LightGBM,
CatBoost), various deep learning architectures (LSTMs, GRUs, TCNs, Transformers),
and relevant statistical models. A comparative analysis assesses these models based
on criteria pertinent to the competition context. Strategies for combining model
predictions through ensembling and hybrid architectures are examined. Finally,
insights gleaned from general Kaggle competition practices and specific energy
forecasting challenges are presented, culminating in concrete recommendations for
tackling the Enefit competition.
II. Enhancing Training Data: Time Series Augmentation Strategies
A. Definition and Goals of Time Series Data Augmentation (DA)
Data Augmentation (DA) encompasses a collection of techniques designed to
artificially expand the size and enhance the diversity of a training dataset.8 This is
achieved either by creating modified copies of existing data samples or by generating
entirely new synthetic data points based on the original dataset.8 The primary
objectives of applying DA, particularly in the context of time series analysis, are
multi-faceted:
1.​ Expand Limited Datasets: Real-world time series datasets, especially in
specialized domains, can be scarce or expensive to acquire.12 DA provides a
cost-effective means to increase the volume of training data, which is often
crucial for training complex machine learning models effectively.8 Limited data
can lead to poor model generalization and overfitting.9
2.​ Improve Model Robustness and Generalization: By exposing models to a wider
variety of data instances during training, DA helps them learn more robust
representations and generalize better to unseen data.8 This involves making the
model less sensitive to minor variations, noise, or shifts that might occur in
real-world operational data.8
3.​ Reduce Overfitting: Overfitting occurs when a model learns the training data too
well, including its noise and specific idiosyncrasies, leading to poor performance
on new data. Increasing data diversity through augmentation acts as a regularizer,
mitigating the risk of overfitting.8
4.​ Address Data Imbalance: While less directly applicable to regression tasks like
the Enefit competition's primary goal, DA techniques like SMOTE are often used in
classification to oversample minority classes, improving model performance on
imbalanced datasets.10

However, applying DA to time series data presents unique challenges compared to

other data modalities like images.16 The defining characteristic of time series data is
its inherent temporal structure – the order of data points matters, and dependencies
exist across time steps (e.g., trends, seasonality, autocorrelation).16 Naively applying
transformations borrowed from image augmentation (like random cropping or
rotation) can easily distort or destroy these critical temporal patterns, rendering the
augmented data useless or even harmful to model training.16 Each time series dataset
possesses unique characteristics, demanding careful consideration and specialized
techniques to ensure that augmentation enhances rather than degrades the data
quality.12
The fundamental difficulty in time series DA lies in striking a delicate balance:
generating sufficiently diverse new samples to improve model generalization while
rigorously preserving the temporal integrity and underlying patterns of the original
sequences. Basic techniques might introduce point-wise variability but inadvertently
break crucial long-term dependencies if not calibrated precisely. More sophisticated
methods aim to respect the temporal structure but might generate samples that are
too similar to the original data or are computationally demanding. Thus, the selection
and application of DA methods must be carefully tailored to the specific properties of
the time series data and the requirements of the downstream modeling task. Various
taxonomies have been proposed to categorize the growing number of DA techniques,
often grouping them based on the transformation type (e.g., Transformation-Based,
Pattern-Based, Generative, Decomposition-Based, Automated DA), providing a useful
framework for understanding the landscape of available methods.15

B. Common Time Series Augmentation Techniques

Several techniques have been developed to augment time series data while
attempting to respect its temporal nature. Some common approaches include:
1.​ Noise Injection (Jittering): This is one of the simplest DA methods. It involves
adding a small amount of random noise, typically drawn from a Gaussian
distribution with zero mean, to each data point in the time series.8 Mathematically,
if T = {t_1,..., t_n} is the original series, the augmented series T' is T' = {t_i + ε_i},
where ε_i represents the noise added at time step i.21
○​ Pros: This technique directly increases the size of the training set and can
make the model more tolerant to small fluctuations or measurement errors
often present in real-world data, thereby enhancing robustness.8 It can also
help mitigate drift in time series.21
○​ Cons: The effectiveness hinges on selecting an appropriate noise level
(variance). Too much noise can obscure the underlying signal, distorting
important features like trends and seasonality, which negatively impacts
predictive accuracy.8 Conversely, too little noise may not provide significant
benefits. Furthermore, added noise can sometimes complicate the
interpretation of the model's behavior.8
2.​ Scaling (Magnitude Scaling/Warping): This method modifies the magnitude or
amplitude of the time series. It can involve multiplying the entire series by a
random scalar factor, often drawn from a distribution centered around 1 (e.g.,
Gaussian N(1, σ^2)) 21, or applying a more complex transformation like Magnitude
Warping, which multiplies the series by a smooth curve, such as a cubic spline
defined by knots at random magnitudes.22
 ○​ Pros: Scaling helps the model become more robust to variations in signal
amplitude, which is relevant in domains like finance or energy monitoring
where signal strength can fluctuate.8 It can improve the model's ability to
generalize across different scales of input data.8
○​ Cons: Similar to noise injection, inappropriate scaling can distort essential
time series properties like trends and seasonality, potentially leading to
misleading training samples.8 There's also a risk of the model overfitting to
artificially created magnitude patterns if scaling is not applied judiciously.8
Preserving relationships with other variables (like installed_capacity in Enefit)
requires careful consideration.
3.​ Time Warping (Window Warping, DTW-based): These techniques directly
manipulate the time dimension of the series, simulating variations in the speed or
timing of events.18
○​ Window Warping: This involves selecting a random segment (window) of the
time series and either compressing it (by downsampling) or stretching it (by
upsampling), while keeping the rest of the series unchanged.22 The resulting
series often needs to be rescaled back to the original length, potentially
requiring cropping, to be used with models expecting fixed-length inputs.23
○​ Dynamic Time Warping (DTW): DTW is fundamentally an algorithm for
measuring similarity between two sequences that may be out of phase by
finding an optimal non-linear alignment (warping path) between them.20 It
minimizes the cumulative distance between aligned points subject to
constraints like monotonicity and boundary conditions.26 While primarily a
distance measure, DTW's alignment capabilities can be leveraged for
augmentation. Methods like DTW Barycentric Averaging (DTWBA) iteratively
compute an average sequence from a set of time series aligned using DTW 20,
and guided warping uses the DTW path between a sample and reference
pattern to mix their features.30
○​ Pros: Time warping methods directly address temporal variations, making
models more robust to events occurring at slightly different speeds or times.18
DTW is particularly effective at handling phase shifts and aligning sequences
with similar shapes but different timing.26
○​ Cons: DTW is computationally more expensive than simpler methods, typically
with O(N*M) complexity for sequences of length N and M, although faster
approximations exist. DTW distance doesn't satisfy the triangle inequality.
DTWBA can be computationally intensive.22 Window Warping might distort
essential patterns if applied carelessly and often requires additional
processing (cropping) for deep learning models.23
4.​ Window Slicing (Cropping): This technique involves extracting shorter,
 potentially overlapping, sub-sequences from a longer time series to use as
individual training samples.8
○​ Pros: It can dramatically increase the number of training examples available,
especially when original data is limited but long.8 Training on different
segments can help prevent overfitting to the full sequence and improve
invariance to the time scale or position of patterns within the series.8 It allows
models to focus on patterns within smaller intervals.18
○​ Cons: The primary drawback is the potential loss of information about
long-term dependencies that extend beyond the chosen window size.
Selecting an appropriate window size is crucial and often requires
experimentation; too short may miss context, too long may not provide
enough augmentation. Careless slicing might also remove vital information
necessary for the task.20
5.​ Other Transformations: Several other transformation-based techniques exist:
○​ Flipping: Inverting the sign of the time series values (x'_t = -x_t). Useful if
upward and downward trends are symmetric in their meaning for the task.23
○​ Permutation/Shuffling: Randomly reordering elements. This can involve
shuffling feature dimensions (only suitable for multivariate series where
feature order is irrelevant 22) or shuffling time slices (Slice and Shuffle),
applicable if temporal segments are somewhat interchangeable.22 Random
shuffling of steps is also possible.24
○​ Frequency Domain Methods: Techniques like Amplitude and Phase
Perturbations (APP) apply noise in the frequency domain after a Fourier
transform.23 Surrogate methods like AAFT/IAAFT shuffle phases to generate
new series preserving certain statistical properties.23 These are often used for
classification or anomaly detection rather than forecasting.
○​ Time-Frequency Methods: Techniques like SpecAugment operate on
time-frequency representations (e.g., spectrograms derived from STFT),
applying masking or warping in this domain.23 Primarily used in audio/speech
but concepts could be adapted.

C. Generative Models for Synthetic Time Series

Beyond transforming existing data, generative models aim to learn the underlying
data-generating process of the time series and produce entirely new, synthetic
samples that mimic the real data's characteristics.12 These methods hold significant
promise for creating high-fidelity data, especially for complex, conditional scenarios.
1.​ Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs): GANs employ a two-player game
framework.36 A Generator network learns to create synthetic data (e.g., time
 series) from random noise, while a Discriminator network learns to distinguish
between real data samples and the synthetic ones produced by the Generator.18
They are trained adversarially: the Generator tries to fool the Discriminator, and
the Discriminator tries to correctly identify fakes.36
○​ Time Series GANs: Standard GANs were not designed for sequential data.
Several adaptations exist:
■​ TimeGAN: A notable architecture that combines an autoencoder
(embedding and recovery functions) with the GAN.17 It operates in a
learned latent space and incorporates a supervised loss to explicitly
capture temporal dynamics alongside the unsupervised adversarial loss,
aiming for realistic sequences.40
■​ Conditional GANs (CGANs): Allow generation conditioned on specific
attributes or labels. T-CGAN conditions on timestamps, potentially useful
for irregular sampling.41 Other conditional models can use weather, time,
or client features as inputs.38
■​ RNN/LSTM/Transformer-based GANs: Utilize recurrent or transformer
architectures within the Generator and/or Discriminator to better handle
sequential dependencies.39 TTS-GAN uses Transformers 46, LSTM-GAN
uses LSTMs.39
○​ Pros: GANs are known for generating sharp, realistic samples that can closely
resemble real data distributions.18 They can learn complex, high-dimensional
distributions and potentially capture intricate temporal dynamics, especially
with specialized architectures like TimeGAN.25 Conditional GANs allow
targeted data generation for specific scenarios.43 They are also valuable for
generating privacy-preserving synthetic data.35
○​ Cons: Training GANs can be notoriously unstable, suffering from issues like
mode collapse (Generator produces limited variety) and convergence
difficulties.25 They are computationally expensive to train 35 and require careful
hyperparameter tuning. Evaluating the quality of GAN-generated time series
is also challenging.47 Basic GANs may struggle with long sequences or
irregular sampling without modifications.41
2.​ Variational Autoencoders (VAEs): VAEs are another class of generative models
based on autoencoders.22 An Encoder maps the input data to parameters (mean
and variance) of a latent probability distribution (typically Gaussian). A latent
vector is sampled from this distribution, and a Decoder network generates a data
sample from this latent vector.37 They are trained to maximize the evidence lower
bound (ELBO), balancing reconstruction accuracy and regularization of the latent
space.
○​ Time Series VAEs: Recurrent architectures can be used in the
 encoder/decoder (e.g., VRAE 37). VAEs can also be combined with GANs
(VAE-GAN) to potentially leverage the strengths of both – VAEs offer more
stable training and a structured latent space, while GANs can produce
sharper samples.48
○​ Pros: VAE training is generally more stable than GAN training. The learned
latent space is often smoother and allows for meaningful interpolation. They
explicitly model the data distribution.37
○​ Cons: Generated samples from VAEs can sometimes be blurrier or less sharp
compared to GANs due to the nature of the reconstruction loss. The reliance
on approximate inference (variational approximation) can limit the model's
ability to perfectly capture the true data distribution.37
3.​ Diffusion Models: A newer class of generative models showing state-of-the-art
results, particularly in image generation. They work by defining a forward process
that gradually adds noise to the data until it becomes pure noise, and then
learning a reverse process that starts from noise and gradually denoises it to
generate a sample.44
○​ Time Series Diffusion: Application to time series is an active research area.52
Models like ECDM incorporate diffusion for conditional net load forecasting.44
○​ Pros: Can generate very high-quality, diverse samples. Potentially better at
capturing the full data distribution (less mode collapse) compared to GANs.
○​ Cons: Sampling can be computationally intensive (requires many steps). Still a
relatively new approach for time series compared to GANs/VAEs, with fewer
established best practices.

The power of generative models, especially conditional variants 34, lies in their ability
to learn the underlying data generation process, p(data | context). This contrasts with
basic augmentation techniques that merely transform existing samples. By learning
this conditional distribution, generative models can synthesize data for specific,
potentially rare or even unseen, contexts (like unusual weather combinations or new
prosumer characteristics).34 This capability is particularly valuable for improving model
robustness and generalization in forecasting competitions where future conditions
might differ from the training data. For the Enefit competition, this could mean
generating plausible energy profiles for weather scenarios or customer segments
underrepresented in the historical data. However, the increased complexity of these
models necessitates significant expertise, computational resources, and rigorous
evaluation to ensure the generated data is realistic and beneficial for the downstream
MAE task.35

D. Evaluating Synthetic Time Series Data Quality

Generating synthetic data is only useful if the data is of high quality – meaning it is
both realistic and beneficial for the intended task. Evaluating synthetic time series is
crucial but complex, arguably more so than for images, as visual inspection is often
less informative due to noise and dimensionality.47 A multi-faceted evaluation
approach is necessary, typically considering fidelity, utility, and sometimes privacy.55
1.​ Fidelity (Statistical Similarity): This assesses how well the statistical properties
of the synthetic dataset match those of the real dataset.55 High fidelity indicates
the generator has captured the data distribution well. Metrics include:
○​ Marginal Distributions: Comparing histograms or density plots for each
variable. Quantitative metrics include Histogram Similarity scores 57,
Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) tests, or Total Variation Distance (TVD).55 Basic
statistics (mean, median, std dev, min/max, quartiles) should also align.57
○​ Correlations: Assessing pairwise relationships. Correlation matrices (e.g.,
Pearson) for numerical features and contingency tables/Mutual Information
scores for categorical or mixed features should be compared between real
and synthetic data.57
○​ Temporal Dependencies: Crucial for time series. Comparing Autocorrelation
Function (ACF) and Partial Autocorrelation Function (PACF) plots or scores
between real and synthetic series helps evaluate if temporal dynamics are
preserved.57
○​ Multivariate Distribution Comparison: Metrics that compare the joint
distributions, such as Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) 43, Wasserstein
distance 48, Hellinger distance 59, or Fréchet distance (often computed in an
embedding space, e.g., using features from a pretrained model).47
2.​ Utility (Downstream Task Performance): This measures how useful the
synthetic data is for a specific machine learning task.55 This is often considered
the most important evaluation dimension for practical applications like Kaggle
competitions.
○​ Train-Synthetic-Test-Real (TSTR): Train a predictive model (e.g., the
forecasting model intended for the competition) solely on the synthetic data
and evaluate its performance on a held-out set of real data.42 Compare this
performance (e.g., MAE for Enefit) to a model trained on the real data. Similar
performance indicates high utility.
○​ Train-Real-Test-Synthetic (TRTS): Train on real data, test on synthetic. Less
common for evaluating generative quality but can test model robustness.
○​ Combined Training: Train a model on a mix of real and synthetic data and
evaluate on real test data. An improvement over training on real data alone
indicates positive utility from augmentation.
 ○​ Other Utility Metrics: Comparing feature importance scores from models
trained on real vs. synthetic data 55, or using specialized utility scores like
QScore.55
3.​ Privacy: Assesses the risk of re-identifying real individuals or disclosing sensitive
information from the synthetic data.55 Metrics include exact match scores
(checking if synthetic samples are identical to real ones), attribute inference
attacks, membership inference attacks, and re-identification scores.55 While
important for sensitive data, this is likely less critical for the Enefit competition
unless specific client identifiers are mishandled.
4.​ Diversity and Realism (Sample-Level): Beyond statistical averages, it's useful
to assess if the generator produces diverse outputs covering the range of real
data (Coverage/Recall) and if individual samples appear plausible
(Precision/Fidelity).61 Metrics like α-Precision and β-Recall attempt to quantify
this.61 Visual inspection, though difficult for complex time series, can still provide
qualitative insights.47

A comprehensive evaluation requires considering multiple metrics across these

dimensions. High statistical fidelity (e.g., matching marginal distributions and
correlations) is a prerequisite, but does not guarantee utility. For instance, a generator
might perfectly replicate average statistics but fail to capture crucial temporal
dependencies like autocorrelation 57, leading to poor forecasting performance.
Therefore, for competitive data science, assessing the utility of the synthetic data
through downstream task evaluation (like TSTR using the competition metric MAE) is
paramount.47 If the synthetic data, used either alone or in combination with real data,
improves the final model's score on a representative validation set, it demonstrates
practical value.

III. Tailoring Augmentation for the Enefit Competition

A. Analysis of Enefit Data
To effectively apply data augmentation, understanding the specific characteristics of
the Enefit competition data is essential. The core datasets provided include 2:
●​ train.csv: Contains the primary target variable (target), representing the hourly
electricity consumption or production amount for specific segments. Segments
are defined by county, is_business (boolean), and product_type (categorical:
Combined, Fixed, General service, Spot). An is_consumption flag (boolean)
distinguishes between consumption (target >= 0) and production (target <= 0,
typically from solar panels). It includes timestamps (datetime) marking the start of
the 1-hour interval (in EET/EEST timezone) and a data_block_id indicating data
 availability for forecasting.
●​ client.csv: Provides information about the prosumers aggregated by segment
(county, is_business, product_type). Key features include eic_count (number of
consumption points) and installed_capacity (photovoltaic solar panel capacity in
kW). This data changes over time, indicated by date and data_block_id.
●​ Weather Data (historical_weather.csv, forecast_weather.csv): Includes
historical weather measurements and future forecasts from ECMWF. Features
cover temperature, dewpoint, cloud cover (multiple altitudes), wind components
(u/v), rain, snowfall, pressure, and crucially for production, solar radiation (direct,
diffuse, surface downwards).2 Weather data is associated with specific locations
(latitude, longitude) and timestamps (datetime or forecast_datetime). Note the
convention: some weather variables like temperature are instantaneous values at
the end of the hour, while radiation is accumulated during the hour.2 Forecasts
include origin_datetime and hours_ahead.2
●​ Price Data (gas_prices.csv, electricity_prices.csv): Provides historical
day-ahead market prices for natural gas and electricity (euros_per_mwh), linked
by forecast_date and data_block_id.2

The competition is a time-series forecasting task using a dedicated API, ensuring

models do not access future information during prediction.2 Submissions are
evaluated based on the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) between predicted and actual
target values.3 Data arrives in blocks (data_block_id), reflecting the real-world
scenario where forecasts are made periodically (e.g., daily) with updated information.2
This structure implies that models need to handle potentially evolving data
distributions over time.

B. Evaluating DA Technique Applicability

Based on the Enefit data structure and forecasting goal, the applicability of common
DA techniques varies:
●​ Noise Injection: This could be moderately useful. Adding small amounts of noise
to the target variable or key weather features (like temperature or radiation) might
improve model robustness against minor real-world fluctuations or sensor
inaccuracies. However, the noise level must be carefully calibrated to avoid
masking genuine signals, especially the strong diurnal and seasonal patterns in
energy consumption and solar production. Applying noise proportionally to the
signal magnitude or installed capacity might be more physically plausible than
adding constant noise.8
●​ Scaling/Magnitude Warping: This technique has potential but requires careful
application. Scaling the overall target might simulate changes in base load
 consumption or overall solar panel efficiency. However, it's crucial to maintain the
relationship between production and installed_capacity. A more meaningful
approach might be to scale the normalized target (e.g., target / installed_capacity
for production 4) to simulate variations in efficiency per unit capacity, or scale
consumption relative to baseline patterns. Uncontrolled scaling could easily
distort the physically grounded relationships between energy, weather, and
capacity.8
●​ Time Warping: Techniques like DTW or Window Warping seem less directly
applicable to the raw Enefit time series. Energy consumption and production are
strongly tied to specific clock times (diurnal cycles, work schedules) and calendar
events (weekends, seasons). Non-linearly warping the time axis could easily
disrupt these fundamental patterns (e.g., shifting peak solar production away
from midday). Conditional time warping (e.g., slightly shifting peak timing based
on cloud cover dynamics) is conceivable but highly complex to implement
realistically. Window Warping would likely require subsequent cropping and risks
breaking daily/weekly cycles.18
●​ Window Slicing: This appears highly applicable and likely beneficial. The training
data spans a considerable period (implied by data_block_id structure and typical
Kaggle datasets). Slicing this history into shorter overlapping or non-overlapping
windows (e.g., multi-day or weekly segments) can significantly increase the
number of training samples. The key is to choose a window length sufficient to
capture relevant patterns (e.g., daily cycles, weather system effects) and
compatible with the model's input requirements. Care must be taken to align
target slices with corresponding slices of exogenous features (weather, prices,
client info).8
●​ Generative Models (GANs/VAEs/Diffusion): These hold the most significant
potential for creating truly novel and useful synthetic data, but also pose the
greatest implementation challenge. Conditional generative models are particularly
relevant.34 They could learn the complex mapping from context (weather
forecasts, client profile, time of day/year, data_block_id) to the target energy
profile (target, is_consumption). This would allow generating realistic energy
series for specific, perhaps underrepresented, conditions (e.g., extreme weather
events, new types of prosumers, future data_block_id characteristics).
Architectures like TimeGAN 40, conditional GANs 42, or VAE-GANs 48 could be
adapted. Generating synthetic weather sequences 45 consistent with
meteorological principles is another avenue if forecast quality is a limiting factor.
The main hurdles are the complexity, computational cost, and the need for
rigorous validation within competition constraints.3
Considering the Enefit context, the most practical and likely effective DA strategies
are Window Slicing for leveraging the historical data depth and carefully tuned Noise
Injection or relative Scaling for robustness. Generative models offer a higher
ceiling for performance improvement, particularly for enhancing generalization to
future, potentially unseen conditions, which is vital in a forecasting competition.3 Their
ability to generate data conditioned on specific contexts aligns well with the problem
structure (predicting energy based on known future weather/client info). However,
their successful implementation requires substantial effort and expertise, making
them a higher-risk, higher-reward strategy compared to simpler transformations. The
time-series API and data_block_id structure suggest potential distribution shifts over
time, which sophisticated generative models might be better equipped to handle than
static augmentation methods.

C. Strategies for Generating Realistic Synthetic Data

To maximize the utility of synthetic data generated by models like GANs or VAEs for
the Enefit competition, several strategies should be employed:
●​ Prioritize Conditional Generation: The core task is predicting energy based on
known future context. Therefore, synthetic data generation should be conditioned
on the key driving variables: future weather forecasts (radiation, temperature,
cloud cover, wind), relevant time features (hour of day, day of week, month,
holiday flags), and client characteristics (installed capacity, business type,
product type, county).34 The data_block_id might also be used as a condition to
capture temporal shifts in behavior or data quality.
●​ Model Interdependencies and Constraints: The generated data must respect
physical realities and known relationships. Solar production (target where
is_consumption=0) should be strongly correlated with solar radiation and
installed_capacity, and physically constrained (e.g., non-negative, capped by
potential). Consumption patterns (target where is_consumption=1) vary
significantly based on is_business, time of day, day of week, and potentially
temperature (heating/cooling). Generative models should implicitly or explicitly
learn these relationships. While full agent-based modeling (ABM) 64 is likely too
complex for direct data generation here, ABM principles about prosumer decision
drivers (economics, comfort) can inform the design of conditional generation
factors.65
●​ Leverage Domain Knowledge and Decomposition: Incorporate known cyclical
patterns explicitly. Time series decomposition techniques can separate the raw
series into trend, seasonal (daily, weekly, yearly), and residual components.19
Augmenting or generating these components separately (e.g., generating realistic
 residuals conditioned on weather/time, then adding back deterministic seasonal
patterns) might yield more controllable and realistic results.15
●​ Consider Synthetic Exogenous Data: If the quality or diversity of provided
weather forecasts is deemed insufficient, generating alternative, plausible
weather scenarios could be beneficial. Methods range from simpler
Fourier-based approaches preserving statistical moments 63 or bootstrapping
techniques 69 to more complex weather-specific generative models like
TemperatureGAN 45 or diffusion models.52 Ensuring physical consistency across
generated weather variables (e.g., temperature, dewpoint, radiation) is critical.
●​ Rigorous Evaluation Focused on Utility: As emphasized previously, generated
data must be validated not just for statistical similarity but for its impact on the
downstream task. Use the TSTR approach with the competition's MAE metric on a
reliable time-series cross-validation setup to determine if the synthetic data
actually improves forecasting accuracy.42 Iteratively refine the generation process
based on these utility evaluations.

IV. Beyond XGBoost: Advanced Forecasting Models

While XGBoost provides a strong foundation, exploring other modeling paradigms is
essential for potentially unlocking higher performance in the Enefit competition. Key
alternatives fall into Gradient Boosting Machines (GBMs), Deep Learning models, and
traditional Statistical models.

A. Other Gradient Boosting Machines (GBMs)

GBMs build models sequentially, with each new model correcting the errors of the
previous ones. XGBoost is a highly optimized implementation, but alternatives offer
distinct advantages.
1.​ LightGBM (LGBM):
○​ Mechanism: LGBM is a GBDT framework known for its efficiency. It employs
several key optimizations: histogram-based algorithms for finding splits
(reducing computation compared to exact searches), Gradient-based
One-Side Sampling (GOSS) which focuses on instances with larger gradients
(more informative errors), and Exclusive Feature Bundling (EFB) which groups
mutually exclusive features to reduce dimensionality.71 It typically uses a
leaf-wise tree growth strategy, which can lead to faster convergence and
potentially higher accuracy than traditional level-wise growth, though it
requires careful regularization (e.g., limiting tree depth) to prevent
overfitting.71
○​ Pros: The primary advantage is speed and efficiency. LGBM often trains
 significantly faster and uses less memory than XGBoost, especially on large
datasets.72 Its accuracy is generally comparable to, and sometimes exceeds,
XGBoost.72 It supports efficient parallel and distributed training 71 and has
become a dominant tool in Kaggle competitions involving tabular data.73
Probabilistic forecasting extensions also exist.73
○​ Cons: The leaf-wise growth can make it more sensitive to hyperparameters
and potentially more prone to overfitting on smaller datasets if not properly
tuned compared to XGBoost's default level-wise growth.
○​ Enefit Relevance: Extremely high. The speed advantage is a major asset in
Kaggle's time-constrained environment, allowing for more feature engineering
and tuning iterations. Its strong performance on tabular data makes it
well-suited for integrating Enefit's diverse features. It has proven successful in
energy forecasting 80 and other time series competitions 73, and public Enefit
notebooks utilize it.83
2.​ CatBoost:
○​ Mechanism: CatBoost (Categorical Boosting) is another GBDT implementation
with unique features. It uses oblivious (symmetric) decision trees, where the
same splitting criterion is applied across an entire level of the tree, which acts
as a form of regularization.76 Its most distinctive feature is its sophisticated
built-in handling of categorical features. It employs techniques like ordered
boosting (a permutation-based approach to avoid target leakage when
calculating target statistics) and combinations of categorical features.72
○​ Pros: Superior native handling of categorical features often eliminates the
need for extensive manual encoding (like one-hot encoding), simplifying
preprocessing and potentially improving accuracy, especially when many
informative categorical variables are present.74 It's designed to be robust
against overfitting due to ordered boosting and symmetric trees.76 Accuracy
can be very high, sometimes surpassing LGBM and XGBoost, particularly on
datasets rich in categorical information.72
○​ Cons: Training time is generally slower than LightGBM, although often faster
than standard XGBoost.74 Prediction time, however, can be very fast.76
○​ Enefit Relevance: High. The Enefit dataset contains several important
categorical features (county, is_business, product_type). CatBoost's ability to
handle these natively and effectively could provide a significant advantage,
reducing feature engineering effort and potentially capturing complex
interactions involving these categories better than other GBMs requiring
manual encoding.84

B. Deep Learning Models

Deep learning offers powerful tools for automatically learning complex patterns and
dependencies from sequential data.
1.​ Recurrent Neural Networks (LSTMs, GRUs):
○​ Mechanism: RNNs process sequences element by element, maintaining an
internal hidden state (memory) that captures information from previous
steps.87 Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) and Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) are
advanced RNN variants designed to mitigate the vanishing/exploding gradient
problem and learn long-range dependencies.4 They use gating mechanisms
(input, forget, output gates in LSTM; update, reset gates in GRU) to control
the flow of information through the network's memory cells.4
○​ Pros: Explicitly designed to model sequential data and capture temporal
dependencies. Can handle sequences of variable length. LSTMs and GRUs
have demonstrated success in various time series tasks, including energy
forecasting.4 Bi-directional variants can process sequences in both forward
and backward directions, capturing broader context.92
○​ Cons: Training can be slow due to the inherently sequential nature of
computation (difficult to parallelize across time steps).89 While better than
simple RNNs, they can still struggle to capture extremely long dependencies
compared to architectures like Transformers.88 Performance can be sensitive
to initialization and hyperparameters.
○​ Enefit Relevance: Moderate to High. Well-suited for modeling the temporal
evolution of energy consumption/production and weather patterns.
Exogenous variables (weather, client info, prices) can be fed as inputs at each
time step alongside the lagged target or other sequential features. GRUs offer
a slightly simpler architecture than LSTMs with often comparable
performance.4
2.​ Temporal Convolutional Networks (TCNs):
○​ Mechanism: TCNs apply convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to sequence
data. Key features include 1D convolutions, causal convolutions (ensuring
predictions only depend on past information, preventing future leakage) 89,
dilated convolutions (allowing the receptive field to grow exponentially with
network depth, capturing long dependencies efficiently), and residual
connections (stabilizing training of deep networks).87
○​ Pros: Convolutional operations can be parallelized across the time dimension,
leading to significantly faster training and inference compared to RNNs.89
Dilated causal convolutions provide large receptive fields, enabling the model
to capture long-range temporal dependencies effectively, often exceeding the
practical memory capacity of LSTMs.89 They generally exhibit stable gradients
 and have shown strong empirical performance, frequently outperforming
RNNs on sequence modeling benchmarks.87
○​ Cons: Memory requirements can increase with the size of the receptive field.
The fixed kernel size might be less flexible than the dynamic state updates of
RNNs for certain types of sequences. May require padding to maintain
sequence length through layers.97
○​ Enefit Relevance: High. TCNs represent a compelling alternative to RNNs for
the Enefit challenge, offering potential improvements in both training speed
and accuracy. Their ability to capture long temporal patterns efficiently is
well-suited for data with daily, weekly, and seasonal cycles, like energy and
weather data.96
3.​ Transformers:
○​ Mechanism: Originally developed for natural language processing (NLP),
Transformers rely heavily on the self-attention mechanism.91 Self-attention
allows the model to dynamically weigh the importance of all other positions in
the input sequence when computing the representation for a given position,
enabling the capture of complex, long-range dependencies regardless of
their distance in the sequence.99 For time series, common adaptations include
using an encoder-decoder structure or just an encoder 94, and employing a
"patching" technique where the input time series is divided into
non-overlapping segments (patches) which are then treated as tokens.99
○​ Pros: State-of-the-art performance in many sequence modeling domains.
Excellent capability for capturing long-range dependencies, potentially better
than RNNs or TCNs for very long sequences.99 Attention mechanism allows for
parallel processing of sequence elements (unlike RNNs). Recent time-series
specific variants (e.g., PatchTST, iTransformer, FEDformer, Autoformer,
MOIRAI) have shown impressive results in forecasting benchmarks.99 The
emergence of foundation models pre-trained on vast amounts of time series
data offers potential for zero-shot or few-shot forecasting.103
○​ Cons: Transformers are typically very data-hungry and computationally
expensive to train, with standard self-attention having quadratic complexity
with respect to sequence length.103 Performance can degrade significantly
without techniques like patching, especially on tasks with limited input
lengths.99 They might exhibit frequency bias, focusing more on low-frequency
components.107 Their application to time series is less mature than in NLP, with
ongoing research into optimal architectures and techniques.
○​ Enefit Relevance: High Potential, but with caveats. The long time series and
potential for complex, long-range interactions (e.g., seasonal effects
modulated by weather) make Transformers attractive. Models like PatchTST 99
 are strong candidates. However, the computational cost and data
requirements must be considered within Kaggle's kernel limits.3 Success may
depend heavily on effective patching strategies and sufficient training data.
They have been part of winning solutions in complex time series
competitions.81

C. Traditional Statistical Models (for comparison/feature engineering)

While often surpassed by ML/DL methods in complex forecasting competitions,
statistical models remain valuable for baselining and feature engineering.
1.​ ARIMA/SARIMA:
○​ Mechanism: ARIMA (AutoRegressive Integrated Moving Average) models
predict future values based on a linear combination of past values (AR
component), past forecast errors (MA component), and differencing (I
component) applied to make the series stationary.108 SARIMA (Seasonal
ARIMA) extends this by adding seasonal AR, MA, and differencing
components to handle seasonality.108 SARIMAX variants can incorporate
exogenous variables.105
○​ Pros: Well-established statistical foundation, interpretable model parameters,
provides a solid baseline for comparison. SARIMA explicitly models
seasonality.
○​ Cons: Assumes linear relationships between variables. Requires data to be
stationary (or made stationary via differencing), which can sometimes remove
useful information. Struggles with complex non-linear patterns, multiple
seasonalities, or intricate interactions with exogenous variables compared to
ML models.108 Often less accurate on complex, real-world datasets.108
○​ Enefit Relevance: Low as a primary forecasting model due to the likely
non-linearities and complex interactions with weather/client data. However,
ARIMA/SARIMA could be useful for: (1) Establishing a simple baseline MAE
score. (2) Feature engineering: The residuals from an ARIMA/SARIMA fit (the
part of the series not explained by the model) could be used as an input
feature for a more complex ML model, potentially simplifying the task for the
ML model.105
2.​ Prophet:
○​ Mechanism: Developed by Facebook, Prophet is a decomposable time series
model based on Generalized Additive Models (GAMs).108 It models a time
series as the sum of components: a non-linear trend (piecewise linear or
logistic growth), multiple seasonalities (yearly, weekly, daily using Fourier
series), and a user-specified holiday effect.108 It's designed to be robust to
 missing data and outliers and handle shifts in trends.108
○​ Pros: Relatively easy to use and tune. Provides interpretable components
(trend, seasonality, holidays). Automatically handles multiple seasonalities
and holidays effectively.108 Robust to missing data and outliers.114 Can
incorporate exogenous regressors. Often performs well on business time
series with strong seasonality and holiday effects, sometimes outperforming
ARIMA/SARIMA.108
○​ Cons: Fundamentally an additive model, which may not capture complex
multiplicative interactions well. May be less flexible than general ML models
like GBMs or DL models for capturing highly complex, non-standard patterns
or interactions between many features. Performance relative to SARIMA can
vary depending on the dataset and tuning.108
○​ Enefit Relevance: Moderate. Prophet could serve as a strong baseline model
for the Enefit competition, given the clear daily, weekly, and potentially yearly
seasonalities in energy data. Its ability to handle multiple seasonalities and
incorporate regressors (like weather variables) is advantageous. It might
provide competitive performance with less feature engineering effort than
GBMs, although potentially lower peak accuracy.

The landscape of time series forecasting models offers a spectrum of options. The
choice involves navigating trade-offs between established robustness and speed
(GBMs), explicit sequence modeling capabilities (RNNs, TCNs), potential for capturing
very long-range patterns (Transformers), and interpretability or ease of use (Statistical
Models). For a competition like Enefit, with its mix of sequential targets and rich
tabular features, GBMs like LightGBM and CatBoost represent a highly effective
starting point. Deep Learning models, particularly TCNs and Transformers, offer
avenues for potentially higher performance by directly learning complex temporal
dynamics, but demand greater investment in tuning and computational resources.
Statistical models primarily serve as valuable benchmarks or components in feature
engineering pipelines rather than as standalone contenders for top performance. The
Enefit dataset's structure, featuring extensive exogenous information (weather, client
details) alongside the target time series, naturally favors models adept at integrating
diverse data types, a strength of GBMs.73 However, DL models can also effectively
incorporate these exogenous inputs through appropriate architectural design.101 The
success of patching techniques in recent Transformer models 99 underscores the
potential importance of capturing long-range temporal context, which might give DL
approaches an edge if implemented effectively. CatBoost's specialized handling of
categorical features 84 directly addresses a key characteristic of the Enefit client and
segment data. Ultimately, the prevalence of LightGBM in Kaggle successes 77
highlights that its practical balance of speed and performance often proves decisive,
enabling rapid iteration which is critical under competition constraints.

V. Comparative Analysis for Enefit Model Selection

Selecting the most promising models to invest time and resources in during the Enefit
competition requires a comparative analysis based on relevant criteria. Key factors
include potential predictive performance (MAE), computational efficiency, ability to
handle the dataset's specific characteristics (exogenous and categorical variables),
scalability, and ease of implementation.

Criteria for Comparison:

●​ Performance Potential (MAE): Estimated ability to achieve low MAE scores
based on architectural design, known strengths, and performance in similar
competitions or benchmarks.
●​ Computational Requirements: Training time and memory usage, critical for
iterating within Kaggle's 9-hour kernel limits.3
●​ Handling Exogenous Variables: How naturally the model incorporates
time-varying external inputs like weather and prices, and static inputs like client
capacity.
●​ Handling Categorical Features: Native support versus requiring manual
encoding (e.g., one-hot, target encoding) for features like county, is_business,
product_type.
●​ Scalability: How well the model performs as the dataset size increases (relevant
for potentially large training history).
●​ Ease of Implementation & Tuning: Availability of robust libraries, number and
sensitivity of hyperparameters, overall development effort.

Model Comparisons Summary:

●​ XGBoost vs. LightGBM: LGBM is generally significantly faster due to
histogram-based splits, GOSS, and EFB.72 Accuracy is often comparable, with
either potentially slightly better depending on the specific dataset and tuning.72
Both handle tabular exogenous data well. LGBM's speed often makes it the
preferred choice in time-constrained competitions like Kaggle.77
●​ XGBoost/LightGBM vs. CatBoost: CatBoost's main advantage is its superior
native handling of categorical features using ordered boosting and target
statistics.74 This can lead to better accuracy, especially with many categorical
predictors, and simplifies preprocessing. However, CatBoost is typically slower to
train than LGBM.74
 ●​ GBMs vs. LSTMs/GRUs: GBMs are often faster and more straightforward for
integrating tabular/exogenous features. RNNs are designed for sequence
modeling but train sequentially, making them slower.89 RNNs might capture certain
temporal nuances better if features are appropriately lagged and engineered, but
GBMs often win on mixed tabular/time-series data typical in competitions.
●​ GBMs vs. TCNs: TCNs offer a potential speed advantage over RNNs due to
parallelizable convolutions 89 while effectively capturing long dependencies.89
TCNs have outperformed LSTMs in some forecasting benchmarks.89 Both can
incorporate exogenous features. TCNs might be a strong DL alternative to GBMs.
●​ GBMs vs. Transformers: Transformers have the highest potential for modeling
very long-range dependencies 99 but are the most computationally demanding
and data-hungry.103 Their effectiveness often relies on techniques like patching.99
GBMs are generally more robust and efficient on typical competition-sized
datasets, especially when tabular features are dominant.
●​ Deep Learning Models Comparison: TCNs generally offer a better
speed/performance trade-off than LSTMs/GRUs.89 Transformers possess the
greatest capacity for complex, long-range patterns but come with the highest
computational cost and complexity.99
●​ Statistical Models vs. ML/DL: ARIMA and Prophet serve as interpretable
baselines.108 They are typically outperformed by well-tuned ML/DL models on
complex forecasting tasks involving numerous features and non-linearities.108
Prophet's ease of use and seasonality handling make it a stronger baseline than
ARIMA for many business series.108

Suitability for Enefit:

●​ High Suitability: LightGBM, CatBoost. These GBMs are well-suited to the mix of
time series and rich tabular features in Enefit. LGBM offers speed crucial for
iteration 77, while CatBoost offers potentially superior handling of the key
categorical variables.84
●​ High Potential (with effort): TCNs, Transformers. These DL models could
capture complex temporal dynamics and long-range dependencies potentially
missed by GBMs. Success requires careful implementation, feature engineering
for DL context, significant tuning, and managing computational resources within
Kaggle limits.3
●​ Moderate Suitability: LSTMs/GRUs. Capable sequence models but potentially
slower and less effective on long dependencies than TCNs/Transformers.
●​ Low Suitability (as primary model): ARIMA/SARIMA, Prophet. Best used for
baselining or feature engineering.
Comparative Model Summary Table for Enefit:

Feature XGBoost LightGBM CatBoost LSTM/GR TCN Transfor

U mer

Performa High High High (esp. Moderate- High Very High

nce categ.) High Potential
(MAE)

Training Moderate- Very Fast Moderate- Slow Moderate- Slow-Very

Speed Slow Slow Fast Slow

Exogenou Excellent Excellent Excellent Good Good Good

s (requires (requires (requires
Handling design) design) design)

Categoric Requires Requires Native/Ex Requires Requires Requires

al Encoding Encoding cellent Encoding Encoding Encoding
Handling

Scalabilit Good Excellent Good Moderate Good Good

y (Data) (Data
Hungry)

Implemen Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate- Moderate- High

tation High High

Enefit 4/5 5/5 5/5 3/5 4/5 4/5 (High

Suitabilit Effort)
y

(Note: Suitability scores are subjective estimates based on the analysis for the Enefit
context).

No single model emerges as universally superior before experimentation. Top Kaggle

results frequently arise from meticulous tuning and, critically, ensembling diverse,
high-performing models.79 The practicalities of the competition environment,
particularly computational limits and the need for rapid iteration on feature
engineering, often favor faster models like LightGBM as a starting point.77 However,
the specific structure of the Enefit data, with its important categorical features and
potentially complex temporal dependencies influenced by weather, makes CatBoost
and advanced DL models like TCNs and Transformers strong candidates to explore for
pushing performance boundaries. The optimal strategy likely involves experimenting
with several of these top contenders and combining their strengths.

VI. Enhancing Predictions with Ensemble and Hybrid Approaches

Achieving state-of-the-art performance in complex forecasting tasks like the Enefit
competition often involves going beyond single models and leveraging techniques
that combine the strengths of multiple predictors. Ensemble methods and hybrid
models are powerful strategies for improving accuracy and robustness.

A. Ensemble Methods
Ensemble learning combines predictions from several individual base models (often
diverse in their algorithms, hyperparameters, or training data subsets) to produce a
final prediction that is often more accurate and robust than any single base model.118
This is a cornerstone technique in competitive machine learning.79
1.​ Simple Averaging / Weighted Averaging: The most basic ensemble approach
involves simply averaging the predictions made by multiple base models for a
given input.119 For regression tasks like Enefit, this means averaging the predicted
target values. A refinement is weighted averaging, where predictions from models
deemed more reliable (e.g., based on their validation set performance) are given
higher weights in the final average.119 This is easy to implement and can provide a
quick performance boost if the base models are reasonably accurate and
diverse.123
2.​ Blending: Blending is a more sophisticated approach that uses a meta-model to
learn how to best combine the predictions of base models.118 The process
typically involves:
○​ Splitting the training data into a sub-training set and a hold-out validation set.
○​ Training each base model on the sub-training set.
○​ Making predictions with each trained base model on the validation set and
the test set.
○​ Training a meta-model (e.g., linear regression, a simple neural network, or
another GBM) using the predictions on the validation set as input features
and the true validation set labels as the target.
○​ Using the trained meta-model to combine the predictions made by the base
models on the test set to generate the final submission. Blending is simpler to
implement than stacking as it avoids complex cross-validation folds for
meta-feature generation.118
3.​ Stacking (Stacked Generalization): Stacking is conceptually similar to blending
 but uses cross-validation more effectively to generate predictions for training the
meta-model.118 The process involves:
○​ Splitting the training data into K folds.
○​ For each fold k: Train each base model on the other K-1 folds and make
predictions on fold k.
○​ Concatenate the out-of-fold predictions for each base model across all K
folds. These concatenated predictions form the input features for the
meta-model. The original training labels are the target for the meta-model.
○​ Train the meta-model on these out-of-fold predictions.
○​ Train each base model on the entire original training dataset.
○​ Make predictions with these fully trained base models on the test set.
○​ Use the trained meta-model to combine the base model predictions on the
test set for the final output. Stacking generally uses the training data more
efficiently than blending but is more complex and computationally intensive.118
Stacking can also involve multiple layers, where the outputs of one level of
meta-models become inputs for the next.118
●​ Considerations: The success of ensembling relies heavily on the diversity of the
base models. Combining models that make different types of errors is more
beneficial than combining highly correlated models. Diversity can be achieved by
using different algorithms (e.g., LGBM, CatBoost, TCN), different feature subsets,
different hyperparameters, or different training data samples (as in bagging).
Care must be taken to avoid overfitting the meta-model, especially with stacking
where the meta-features are derived from the training data itself. Ensembles
inevitably increase computational cost and complexity.118
●​ Enefit Relevance: Extremely high. Given the multifaceted nature of the Enefit
data (temporal patterns, weather influences, client characteristics, price signals),
different models might excel at capturing different aspects. An ensemble
combining a strong GBM (like LGBM or CatBoost, good with tabular features) with
a strong DL model (like a TCN or Transformer, potentially better at long temporal
dependencies) is a highly promising strategy.81 Blending or stacking are the
standard techniques to implement such combinations effectively.

B. Hybrid Models
Hybrid models differ from ensembles in that they integrate distinct architectural
components within a single model structure, aiming to leverage the complementary
strengths of different approaches internally.91
1.​ Concept: The goal is to create a unified model that benefits from the specific
capabilities of its constituent parts. Common strategies involve using one
 component for feature extraction or data preprocessing and another for the core
prediction task 91, or combining statistical rigor with machine learning flexibility.105
2.​ Examples Relevant to Time Series:
○​ Decomposition-Based Hybrids: A common approach involves first
decomposing the time series into simpler components like trend, seasonality,
and residuals using statistical methods (e.g., moving averages, STL
decomposition).67 Then, different models can be applied to each component –
perhaps a simple linear model for the trend, deterministic functions for
seasonality, and a complex ML/DL model (like LSTM or GBM) for the
harder-to-predict residual component.67 Models like N-BEATS and N-HiTS
embody this philosophy.
○​ CNN-LSTM Models: These models use Convolutional Neural Network (CNN)
layers initially to act as feature extractors, identifying local patterns or spatial
correlations within windows of the sequence. The outputs of the CNN layers
are then fed into LSTM layers, which model the longer-term temporal
dependencies among the extracted features.91
○​ LSTM-XGBoost Models: Various combinations exist. One approach uses LSTM
to process the sequential aspects of the data and generate hidden states or
preliminary predictions, which are then used as input features (along with
other static/exogenous features) for an XGBoost model that makes the final
prediction.92 Another approach replaces the final dense output layer of an
LSTM network with an XGBoost model, potentially leveraging XGBoost's
effectiveness on the final regression task.90
○​ Transformer Hybrids: Transformers can be combined with other architectures.
For instance, convolutional layers might be used for initial patching or local
feature extraction before feeding into Transformer blocks 91, or RNN layers
might be integrated alongside attention mechanisms.81
●​ Enefit Relevance: Moderate to High. Hybrid approaches offer tailored solutions.
For Enefit, decomposing the energy series first might help isolate predictable
seasonal patterns from more volatile weather-driven components, allowing
specialized models for each. An LSTM-XGBoost architecture 92 could potentially
leverage LSTM's sequence handling for lagged target/weather features while
using XGBoost's power to integrate all available static client information and price
data effectively for the final prediction.

It is important to recognize that ensembling and hybrid modeling are complementary

strategies. A competitive approach might involve developing several strong base
models, some of which could themselves be hybrid architectures (e.g., an
LSTM-XGBoost model), and then ensembling the predictions of these diverse base
models using stacking or blending.79 This multi-level combination leverages both the
internal fusion of architectural strengths (in hybrids) and the external aggregation of
diverse model perspectives (in ensembles), often leading to the most robust and
accurate final predictions.

VII. Learning from the Community: Insights from Competitions

Success in Kaggle competitions often builds upon collective knowledge and
established best practices. Analyzing past winning solutions and common strategies
provides valuable insights applicable to the Enefit challenge.

A. General Kaggle Strategies for Time Series

Experience from numerous Kaggle competitions, particularly those involving time
series or tabular data, highlights several recurring themes:
●​ Feature Engineering is Paramount: Even with sophisticated models, thoughtful
feature engineering remains one of the most critical factors for success.122 For
time series, common techniques include:
○​ Lag Features: Using past values of the target variable and exogenous
variables as predictors.122
○​ Rolling Window Statistics: Calculating moving averages, standard deviations,
min/max, quantiles, etc., over rolling time windows to capture trends and
volatility.122
○​ Date/Time Features: Extracting components like hour, day of week, day of
month, month, year, week of year, season, holiday flags, and encoding them
appropriately (e.g., cyclical encoding for cyclical features like hour or
month).73
○​ Interaction Features: Creating features that combine information from
different sources (e.g., weather variable * client capacity, price * time of
day).83
○​ Domain-Specific Features: Incorporating knowledge specific to the problem
(e.g., calculating wind chill from temperature and wind speed).122
●​ Robust Cross-Validation (CV): Accurate evaluation of model performance and
hyperparameter tuning relies heavily on a suitable CV strategy that respects the
temporal nature of the data.94 Simple random K-Fold is inappropriate as it leaks
future information into the validation set. Common time-series CV methods
include:
○​ Time Series Split / Rolling Forecast Origin: Training on data up to time t,
validating on data from t+1 to t+h, then rolling the origin forward.
○​ Expanding Window: Training on all data up to time t, validating on t+1 to t+h,
 then expanding the training window.
○​ Blocked K-Fold: Splitting the data into contiguous blocks based on time (e.g.,
by month or data_block_id 83) and using these blocks for folding, ensuring
validation folds are always chronologically after training folds within a split.
Nested CV (inner loop for tuning, outer loop for evaluation) provides more
reliable performance estimates.81
●​ Hyperparameter Optimization: Tuning model hyperparameters is crucial for
maximizing performance, especially for complex models like GBMs and deep
learning architectures. Automated tools like Grid Search, Random Search, or
Bayesian Optimization (using libraries like Optuna or Hyperopt) are standard
practice.72
●​ Ensembling: Combining predictions from multiple diverse models using
techniques like averaging, blending, or stacking is almost ubiquitous in top Kaggle
solutions.79 It consistently provides a performance boost by reducing variance
and leveraging the strengths of different models.
●​ Model Selection: LightGBM is frequently chosen as a core model due to its
excellent balance of speed and accuracy, facilitating rapid iteration.73 XGBoost
and CatBoost are also common, particularly CatBoost when categorical features
are prominent.74 Deep learning models (LSTMs, Transformers, TCNs) are
increasingly used, often within ensembles, for tasks where they offer advantages
in capturing complex patterns.81
●​ Efficient Data Handling: Using efficient libraries for data manipulation (e.g.,
Polars alongside Pandas) can be crucial for handling large datasets within time
limits.83

B. Specific Insights from Energy Forecasting Competitions

Competitions focused specifically on energy forecasting provide relevant context:
●​ ASHRAE Great Energy Predictor III (GEPIII): This large-scale building energy
prediction competition saw winning solutions dominated by large ensembles of
GBM models, primarily LightGBM.80 Key success factors included extensive
feature engineering (weather, building metadata, time features), meticulous data
cleaning and imputation, and careful handling of outliers and meter
inconsistencies.80
●​ BigDEAL Challenge 2022 (Load Forecasting): A successful approach in this
competition utilized a probabilistic version of LightGBM combined with temporal
hierarchies (aggregating predictions made at different time scales, e.g., hourly
and daily) to improve forecast consistency and accuracy.73 Feature engineering
focused on calendar effects and temperature data was vital.73
●​ General Trends: Hybrid models that combine statistical methods (like
decomposition) with ML/DL approaches are often effective.105 Transformer
models are showing increasing promise in energy forecasting tasks.93 Feature
engineering related to weather variables (temperature, solar radiation, wind) and
temporal factors (time of day, day of week, seasonality, holidays) is standard
practice.73 Handling non-stationarity and potential distribution shifts in energy
data remains a key challenge.104

C. Enefit Competition Specifics (Public Domain)

While top solutions are often kept private until after a competition ends, examining
public Kaggle notebooks and discussion forums for the Enefit competition reveals
some common approaches and potential areas for exploration:
●​ Feature Engineering: Public kernels demonstrate feature engineering techniques
like creating lag features for target and weather variables, calculating rolling
statistics (means, diffs) on weather data, generating cyclical features for time
components (hour, day, month), creating interaction terms (e.g., radiation
multiplied by installed capacity), and explicitly handling the data_block_id to
account for data availability timing.83 Normalizing the target variable by installed
capacity (target / installed_capacity) has been explored as a way to make
production patterns more comparable across different prosumers.4 The use of
efficient data frame libraries like Polars is noted.83
●​ Modeling Approaches: LightGBM appears frequently in public notebooks,
consistent with its general Kaggle popularity.83 Deep learning models like
GRUs/LSTMs have also been experimented with 4, and the potential applicability
of Transformers is recognized.4 Ensembling, particularly weighted averaging or
more complex methods, is often mentioned as a likely component of top
solutions.83
●​ Data Augmentation: Specific discussions or implementations of data
augmentation techniques seem less prevalent in the readily accessible public
materials for Enefit compared to feature engineering or modeling discussions.
This might suggest it was less impactful for early public explorations, or that
effective strategies were developed privately.
●​ Finding Solutions/Ideas: Useful resources include the official Kaggle
competition discussion forums 138, public code notebooks 1, and external
repositories that aggregate Kaggle solutions across many competitions.136

The consistent emphasis across competitions on meticulous feature engineering,

robust cross-validation, and ensembling suggests these are non-negotiable elements
for success in Enefit.79 The speed of LightGBM provides a significant advantage by
enabling more iterations on feature design and hyperparameter tuning, which often
yields greater performance gains than marginal differences between sophisticated
model architectures.77 The relative lack of public focus on data augmentation for
Enefit could represent an underexplored opportunity. Given the potential benefits of
DA, particularly conditional generative models, for improving robustness and handling
data scarcity or shifts 14, systematically investigating and validating DA techniques
using a strong CV framework could offer a competitive advantage.

VIII. Conclusion and Recommendations

Summary of Findings
This report has explored advanced strategies beyond standard XGBoost for the Enefit
Kaggle competition, focusing on data enhancement and sophisticated modeling
techniques. Time series data augmentation offers methods to increase data volume
and robustness, but requires careful application to preserve temporal integrity;
techniques range from simple noise injection and scaling to complex generative
models like GANs and VAEs, with rigorous evaluation being paramount. For Enefit,
window slicing and conditional generative models appear most promising. Beyond
XGBoost, LightGBM offers significant speed advantages, while CatBoost excels with
the dataset's categorical features. Deep learning models like TCNs and Transformers
present high potential for capturing complex temporal dynamics but demand more
resources and tuning. Statistical models like Prophet serve as valuable baselines.
Success in similar competitions consistently relies on extensive feature engineering
tailored to domain specifics (time, weather, client data), robust time-series
cross-validation, and the strategic ensembling (stacking, blending) of diverse,
well-tuned models. Hybrid architectures offer another path to combine model
strengths.

Actionable Recommendations for Enefit

Based on the analysis, the following strategic recommendations are proposed for
participants aiming for top performance in the Enefit competition:
1.​ Establish Strong Baselines: Begin by implementing and thoroughly tuning
robust GBM models, particularly LightGBM (for speed and iteration) and
CatBoost (for native categorical handling). Develop a comprehensive feature set
incorporating lags, rolling statistics for target and exogenous variables, detailed
time-based features (cyclical encoding, holidays), weather interactions, and
client-specific features. Employ a rigorous time-series cross-validation strategy
(e.g., blocked K-Fold based on time or data_block_id) to obtain reliable
performance estimates.
 2.​ Systematically Explore Data Augmentation:
○​ Implement Window Slicing to increase the effective training set size,
ensuring slices are sufficiently long and aligned with exogenous data.
○​ Carefully experiment with Noise Injection and Scaling (consider scaling
relative to capacity for production). Validate rigorously using CV MAE to
ensure these techniques improve robustness without distorting critical
patterns.
○​ If resources and expertise permit, investigate Conditional Generative
Models (e.g., TimeGAN, conditional VAE/GAN) to synthesize realistic energy
profiles conditioned on weather forecasts and client types. Focus evaluation
on downstream utility (MAE improvement).
3.​ Consider Advanced Models Strategically: If performance with optimized GBMs
plateaus, explore deep learning options:
○​ TCNs: Offer a good balance of performance in capturing temporal patterns
and computational efficiency compared to RNNs.
○​ Transformers: Investigate variants like PatchTST, especially if very long-range
dependencies seem important. Be prepared for significant computational
cost and tuning effort. Ensure compatibility with Kaggle kernel limits.
4.​ Prioritize Iterative Feature Engineering: Continuously refine and expand the
feature set. Analyze feature importance from baseline models to guide efforts.
Explore interactions between weather variables, client data (especially
installed_capacity), time features, and price signals. Consider generating features
based on residuals from simpler models (like Prophet or SARIMA). Utilize efficient
data processing tools (e.g., Polars) for speed.
5.​ Implement Sophisticated Ensembling: Plan to combine the predictions of your
best-performing, diverse models. Start with simple weighted averaging based on
CV scores. Progress to Blending or Stacking, using a simple linear model or
another GBM as the meta-learner. Ensure base models are diverse (e.g., LGBM,
CatBoost, TCN/Transformer).
6.​ Leverage Community Resources: Actively monitor Kaggle discussions and
public notebooks for novel feature ideas, parameter settings, or techniques.
However, always validate external ideas thoroughly using your own robust CV
setup before incorporating them into your main pipeline.

Final Thoughts
Achieving success in a challenging time series forecasting competition like Enefit
rarely stems from a single "silver bullet" model or technique. Instead, it typically
results from a meticulous, iterative process combining deep data understanding,
creative feature engineering, careful model selection and tuning, robust validation,
and the intelligent combination of multiple approaches through ensembling. While
starting with efficient and powerful GBMs like LightGBM and CatBoost is pragmatic,
systematically exploring data augmentation and advanced deep learning models,
followed by sophisticated ensembling, offers the most promising path to potentially
achieving top-tier performance.

Works cited

1.​ Predict Energy Behavior of Prosumers - Enefit - Kaggle, accessed on April 16,
2025,
https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/predict-energy-behavior-of-prosumers/co
de)
2.​ Predict Energy Behavior of Prosumers - Enefit - Kaggle, accessed on April 16,
2025,
https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/predict-energy-behavior-of-prosumers/da
ta
3.​ Enefit - Predict Energy Behavior of Prosumers - Kaggle, accessed on April 16,
2025,
https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/predict-energy-behavior-of-prosumers
4.​ Predict Energy Behavior of Prosumers, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://www.nbi.dk/~petersen/Teaching/ML2024/FinalProject/FinalProject09_Pros
umers_TheoXaverInigoAlicja.pdf
5.​ Enefit - Kaggle, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://www.kaggle.com/code/farzonaeraj/enefit
6.​ DylanTartarini1996/enefit_challenge: Repository created for the Enefit Kaggle
Challenge - GitHub, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://github.com/DylanTartarini1996/enefit_challenge/
7.​ dextercorley19/Enefit-Kaggle-Competition: The goal of the competition is to
create an energy prediction model of prosumers to reduce energy imbalance
costs. - GitHub, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://github.com/dextercorley19/Enefit-Kaggle-Competition
8.​ Basic Data Augmentation Method Applied to Time Series - Mad Devs, accessed
on April 16, 2025,
https://maddevs.io/writeups/basic-data-augmentation-method-applied-to-time-
series/
9.​ A Comprehensive Survey on Data Augmentation - arXiv, accessed on April 16,
2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2405.09591v2
10.​A Comprehensive Survey on Data Augmentation - arXiv, accessed on April 16,
2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2405.09591
11.​ Data Augmentation: Techniques, Examples & Benefits - CCS Learning Academy,
accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://www.ccslearningacademy.com/what-is-data-augmentation/
12.​Data Augmentation techniques in time series domain: A survey and taxonomy -
arXiv, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2206.13508v4
13.​Data Augmentation techniques in time series domain: a survey and taxonomy,
accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369505251_Data_Augmentation_techni
ques_in_time_series_domain_a_survey_and_taxonomy
14.​An empirical survey of data augmentation for time series classification with
neural networks, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8282049/
15.​Data Augmentation for Time-Series Classification: a Comprehensive Survey -
arXiv, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2310.10060v5
16.​Data Augmentation for Time-Series Classification: a Comprehensive Survey -
arXiv, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2310.10060v4
17.​Data Augmentation for Multivariate Time Series Classification: An Experimental
Study - arXiv, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2406.06518v1
18.​10 Ways to Master Data Augmentation for Incredible Results - Data Science Dojo,
accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://datasciencedojo.com/blog/understanding-data-augmentation/
19.​Overview of Data Augmentation Techniques in Time Series Analysis - The Science
and Information (SAI) Organization, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://thesai.org/Downloads/Volume15No1/Paper_118-Overview_of_Data_Augme
ntation_Techniques.pdf
20.​Data Augmentation with Suboptimal Warping for Time-Series Classification -
MDPI, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/20/1/98
21.​Class-Based Time Series Data Augmentation to Mitigate Extreme Class Imbalance
for Solar Flare Prediction - arXiv, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://arxiv.org/html/2405.20590v1
22.​Time Series Augmentations | Towards Data Science, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://towardsdatascience.com/time-series-augmentations-16237134b29b/
23.​www.ijcai.org, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://www.ijcai.org/proceedings/2021/0631.pdf
24.​Time Series Data Augmentation – tsai - GitHub Pages, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://timeseriesai.github.io/tsai/data.transforms.html
25.​A Deep Dive Into Data Augmentation Techniques - EMB Global, accessed on April
16, 2025,
https://blog.emb.global/a-deep-dive-into-data-augmentation-techniques/
26.​An introduction to Dynamic Time Warping - Romain Tavenard, accessed on April
16, 2025, https://rtavenar.github.io/blog/dtw.html
27.​DTW Explained - Dynamic Time Warping - Papers With Code, accessed on April
16, 2025, https://paperswithcode.com/method/dtw
28.​Dynamic time warping - Wikipedia, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_time_warping
29.​Dynamic Time Warping Algorithm Review - CSDL, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://csdl.ics.hawaii.edu/techreports/2008/08-04/08-04.pdf
30.​Time Series Data Augmentation for Neural Networks by Time Warping with a
Discriminative Teacher - arXiv, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.08780
31.​Data Augmentation Time Series Python | Restackio, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://www.restack.io/p/data-augmentation-answer-time-series-python-cat-ai
32.​How is data augmentation applied to time-series data? - Milvus, accessed on
April 16, 2025,
https://milvus.io/ai-quick-reference/how-is-data-augmentation-applied-to-times
eries-data
33.​tsgm/tutorials/augmentations.ipynb at main - GitHub, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://github.com/AlexanderVNikitin/tsgm/blob/main/tutorials/augmentations.ipy
nb
34.​CENTS: Generating synthetic electricity consumption time series for rare and
unseen scenarios - arXiv, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://arxiv.org/html/2501.14426v3
35.​Survey of Time Series Data Generation in IoT - PMC, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10422358/
36.​SeriesGAN: Time Series Generation via Adversarial and Autoregressive Learning -
arXiv, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2410.21203v1
37.​A Synthetic Time-Series Generation Using a Variational Recurrent Autoencoder
with an Attention Mechanism in an Industrial Control System - MDPI, accessed on
April 16, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/24/1/128
38.​IH-TCGAN: Time-Series Conditional Generative Adversarial Network with
Improved Hausdorff Distance for Synthesizing Intention Recognition Data - MDPI,
accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/25/5/781
39.​Data Augmentation for Pseudo-Time Series Using Generative Adversarial
Networks - CEUR-WS.org, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3498/paper5.pdf
40.​papers.neurips.cc, accessed on April 16, 2025,
http://papers.neurips.cc/paper/8789-time-series-generative-adversarial-network
s.pdf
41.​[1811.08295] T-CGAN: Conditional Generative Adversarial Network for Data
Augmentation in Noisy Time Series with Irregular Sampling - arXiv, accessed on
April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.08295
42.​[2006.16477] Conditional GAN for timeseries generation - ar5iv - arXiv, accessed
on April 16, 2025, https://ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org/html/2006.16477
43.​Generative Adversarial Network for Synthetic Time Series Data Generation in
Smart Grids - OSTI.GOV, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1607585
44.​Probabilistic Net Load Forecasting for High-Penetration RES Grids Utilizing
Enhanced Conditional Diffusion Model - arXiv, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://arxiv.org/html/2503.17770v1
45.​TemperatureGAN: generative modeling of regional atmospheric temperatures |
Environmental Data Science | Cambridge Core, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/environmental-data-science/article/tem
peraturegan-generative-modeling-of-regional-atmospheric-temperatures/1B55
A7DF1CCFACE1A89FE4653D3FCA22
46.​[2202.02691] TTS-GAN: A Transformer-based Time-Series Generative Adversarial
 Network, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.02691
47.​Evaluation is Key: A Survey on Evaluation Measures for Synthetic Time Series,
accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373853713_Evaluation_is_Key_A_Survey
_on_Evaluation_Measures_for_Synthetic_Time_Series
48.​Smart Home Energy Management: VAE-GAN synthetic dataset generator and
Q-learning, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.08885
49.​Smart Home Energy Management: VAE-GAN synthetic dataset generator and
Q-learning - arXiv, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.08885
50.​(PDF) Smart Home Energy Management: VAE-GAN synthetic dataset generator
and Q-learning - ResearchGate, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370814682_Smart_Home_Energy_Man
agement_VAE-GAN_synthetic_dataset_generator_and_Q-learning
51.​Time Weaver: A Conditional Time Series Generation Model - arXiv, accessed on
April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2403.02682v1
52.​Diffusion Model for Time Series and Spatio-Temporal Data - GitHub, accessed on
April 16, 2025,
https://github.com/yyysjz1997/Awesome-TimeSeries-SpatioTemporal-Diffusion-M
odel
53.​[2006.16477] Conditional GAN for timeseries generation - arXiv, accessed on
April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.16477
54.​TSGM: A Flexible Framework for Generative Modeling of Synthetic Time Series -
arXiv, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2305.11567v2
55.​How to evaluate synthetic data quality - Syntheticus, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://syntheticus.ai/blog/how-to-evaluate-synthetic-data-quality
56.​Advancing Retail Data Science: Comprehensive Evaluation of Synthetic Data -
arXiv, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2406.13130v1
57.​How to evaluate the quality of the synthetic data – measuring from the
perspective of fidelity, utility, and privacy | AWS Machine Learning Blog, accessed
on April 16, 2025,
https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/machine-learning/how-to-evaluate-the-quality-of
-the-synthetic-data-measuring-from-the-perspective-of-fidelity-utility-and-priv
acy/
58.​A Multi-Faceted Evaluation Framework for Assessing Synthetic Data Generated
by Large Language Models - arXiv, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://arxiv.org/html/2404.14445v1
59.​Utility Metrics for Evaluating Synthetic Health Data Generation Methods:
Validation Study, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9030990/
60.​Evaluating Synthetic Data Generation from User Generated Text - MIT Press
Direct, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://direct.mit.edu/coli/article/doi/10.1162/coli_a_00540/124625/Evaluating-Synt
hetic-Data-Generation-from-User
61.​How Faithful is your Synthetic Data? Sample-level Metrics for Evaluating and
Auditing Generative Models, accessed on April 16, 2025,
 https://proceedings.mlr.press/v162/alaa22a/alaa22a.pdf
62.​ENEFIT_Predict_energy_behavi, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://www.kaggle.com/code/serdargundogdu/enefit-predict-energy-behavior-
eda
63.​Synthetic Random Environmental Time Series Generation with Similarity Control,
Preserving Original Signal's Statistical Characteristics - arXiv, accessed on April
16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2502.02392v1
64.​Agent-based Modeling in Energy Systems - SmythOS, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://smythos.com/ai-industry-solutions/energy/agent-based-modeling-in-ener
gy-systems/
65.​Agent Based Modelling for Smart Grids | JRC SES, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://ses.jrc.ec.europa.eu/agent-based-modelling-smart-grids
66.​(PDF) Agent Based Models in Power Systems: A Literature Review -
ResearchGate, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351244257_Agent_Based_Models_in_P
ower_Systems_A_Literature_Review
67.​QuLTSF.pdf - Nanyang Technological University, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://personal.ntu.edu.sg/ariel.neufeld/QuLTSF.pdf
68.​A Hybrid Loss Framework for Decomposition-based Time Series Forecasting
Methods: Balancing Global and Component Errors - arXiv, accessed on April 16,
2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2411.11340
69.​Resampling Methods that Generate Time Series Data to Enable Sensitivity and
Model Analysis in Energy Modeling - arXiv, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://arxiv.org/html/2502.08102v1
70.​[2502.08102] Resampling Methods that Generate Time Series Data to Enable
Sensitivity and Model Analysis in Energy Modeling - arXiv, accessed on April 16,
2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.08102
71.​Optimal starting point for time series forecasting - arXiv, accessed on April 16,
2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2409.16843v1
72.​Benchmarking state-of-the-art gradient boosting algorithms for classification -
arXiv, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.17094
73.​Electricity Load and Peak Forecasting: Feature Engineering, Probabilistic
LightGBM and Temporal Hierarchies - GitHub Pages, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://ecml-aaltd.github.io/aaltd2023/papers/Electricity%20Load%20and%20Pea
k%20Forecasting_%20Feature%20Engineering,%20Probabilistic%20LightGBM%
20and%20Temporal%20Hierarchies.pdf
74.​XGBoost vs LightGBM vs CatBoost vs AdaBoost - Kaggle, accessed on April 16,
2025,
https://www.kaggle.com/code/faressayah/xgboost-vs-lightgbm-vs-catboost-vs-a
daboost
75.​Performance Comparison: CatBoost vs XGBoost and CatBoost vs LightGBM |
Towards Data Science, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://towardsdatascience.com/performance-comparison-catboost-vs-xgboost
-and-catboost-vs-lightgbm-886c1c96db64/
76.​When to Choose CatBoost Over XGBoost or LightGBM [Practical Guide] -
 Neptune.ai, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://neptune.ai/blog/when-to-choose-catboost-over-xgboost-or-lightgbm
77.​Lightgbm vs xgboost vs catboost - Data Science Stack Exchange, accessed on
April 16, 2025,
https://datascience.stackexchange.com/questions/49567/lightgbm-vs-xgboost-vs
-catboost
78.​Comparison and Explanation of Forecasting Algorithms for Energy Time Series -
MDPI, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/9/21/2794
79.​Kaggle forecasting competitions: An overlooked learning opportunity | Request
PDF - ResearchGate, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344096318_Kaggle_forecasting_comp
etitions_An_overlooked_learning_opportunity
80.​The ASHRAE Great Energy Predictor III competition: Overview and results -
ResearchGate, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343855462_The_ASHRAE_Great_Energ
y_Predictor_III_competition_Overview_and_results
81.​NN Transformer using LGBM Knowledge Distillation - American Express - Default
Prediction | Kaggle, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/amex-default-prediction/discussion/34764
1?ref=localhost
82.​M5_Forecasting with LSTM and LightGBM | Kaggle, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://www.kaggle.com/code/surekharamireddy/m5-forecasting-with-lstm-and-l
ightgbm
83.​Enefit pebop submission- change HPs - Kaggle, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://www.kaggle.com/code/nischaymahamana/enefit-pebop-submission-chan
ge-hps/code
84.​Choosing Between XGBoost, LightGBM and CatBoost - Kaggle, accessed on
April 16, 2025,
https://www.kaggle.com/discussions/questions-and-answers/544999
85.​CatBoost For Accurate Time-Series Predictions: Here's How - AI, accessed on
April 16, 2025,
https://aicompetence.org/catboost-for-accurate-time-series-predictions/
86.​Forecasting with XGBoost, LightGBM and other Gradient Boosting models -
skforecast, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://skforecast.org/0.11.0/user_guides/forecasting-xgboost-lightgbm
87.​A Comparative Study of Detecting Anomalies in Time Series Data Using LSTM and
TCN Models - arXiv, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.09293
88.​Unlocking the Power of LSTM for Long Term Time Series Forecasting - arXiv,
accessed on April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2408.10006v1
89.​An Empirical Evaluation of Generic Convolutional and Recurrent Networks for
Sequence Modeling - arXiv, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.01271
90.​(PDF) Short-Term Traffic Flow Prediction Based on LSTM-XGBoost Combination
Model, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346287900_Short-Term_Traffic_Flow_P
 rediction_Based_on_LSTM-XGBoost_Combination_Model
91.​Hybrid deep learning models for time series forecasting of solar power -
ResearchGate, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378395432_Hybrid_deep_learning_mo
dels_for_time_series_forecasting_of_solar_power
92.​(PDF) Load forecasting for energy communities: a novel LSTM-XGBoost hybrid
model based on smart meter data - ResearchGate, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363397991_Load_forecasting_for_ener
gy_communities_a_novel_LSTM-XGBoost_hybrid_model_based_on_smart_meter
_data
93.​Electricity consumption forecasting with Transformer models - NTNU Open,
accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://ntnuopen.ntnu.no/ntnu-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/3095097/no.ntnu%3
Ainspera%3A142737689%3A34440404.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
94.​Key takeaways from Kaggle's most recent time series competition - Ventilator
Pressure Prediction | Towards Data Science, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://towardsdatascience.com/key-takeaways-from-kaggles-most-recent-time
-series-competition-ventilator-pressure-prediction-7a1d2e4e0131/
95.​Development and Comparative Analysis of Temporal Convolutional Network for
Time Series Data Classification | Journal of Neonatal Surgery, accessed on April
16, 2025, https://www.jneonatalsurg.com/index.php/jns/article/view/3195
96.​(PDF) Temporal Convolutional Networks Applied to Energy-related Time Series
Forecasting, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339745646_Temporal_Convolutional_N
etworks_Applied_to_Energy-related_Time_Series_Forecasting
97.​Temporal Convolutional Networks and Forecasting - Unit8, accessed on April 16,
2025,
https://unit8.com/resources/temporal-convolutional-networks-and-forecasting/
98.​[2112.09293] A Comparative Study of Detecting Anomalies in Time Series Data
Using LSTM and TCN Models - arXiv, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.09293
99.​DeformableTST: Transformer for Time Series Forecasting without Over-reliance
on Patching - NIPS papers, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2024/file/a0b1082fc7823c4c68a
bcab4fa850e9c-Paper-Conference.pdf
100.​ PSformer: Parameter-efficient Transformer with Segment Attention for Time
Series Forecasting - arXiv, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://arxiv.org/html/2411.01419v1
101.​ Deep Learning for Time Series Forecasting: A Survey - arXiv, accessed on April
16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2503.10198v1/
102.​ Generative Pretrained Hierarchical Transformer for Time Series Forecasting -
arXiv, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2402.16516v2
103.​ Unified Training of Universal Time Series Forecasting Transformers - arXiv,
accessed on April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2402.02592
104.​ A Comprehensive Survey of Time Series Forecasting: Architectural Diversity
 and Open Challenges - arXiv, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2411.05793
105.​ A Survey of Deep Learning and Foundation Models for Time Series
Forecasting - arXiv, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2401.13912v1
106.​ Transfer Learning with Foundational Models for Time Series Forecasting using
Low-Rank Adaptations - arXiv, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://arxiv.org/html/2410.11539v1
107.​ Fredformer: Frequency Debiased Transformer for Time Series Forecasting -
arXiv, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2406.09009v4
108.​ Comparative Analysis of ARIMA, SARIMA and Prophet Model in Forecasting,
accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/article/10.11648/j.rd.20240504.13
109.​ ARIMA vs Prophet vs LSTM for Time Series Prediction - Neptune.ai, accessed
on April 16, 2025, https://neptune.ai/blog/arima-vs-prophet-vs-lstm
110.​ A Comparative Study of ARIMA and SARIMA Models to Forecast Lockdowns
due to SARS-CoV-2 - Longdom Publishing SL, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://www.longdom.org/open-access/a-comparative-study-of-arima-and-sari
ma-models-to-forecast-lockdowns-due-to-sarscov2-98209.html
111.​ (PDF) Comparative Analysis of ARIMA, SARIMA and Prophet Model in
Forecasting, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385157901_Comparative_Analysis_of_A
RIMA_SARIMA_and_Prophet_Model_in_Forecasting
112.​ A Comparison of Time Series Forecast Models for Predicting the Outliers
Particles in Semiconductor Cleanroom - Korean Institute of Information
Technology, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://ki-it.com/xml/34789/34789.pdf
113.​ A Review of ARIMA vs. Machine Learning Approaches for Time Series
Forecasting in Data Driven Networks - MDPI, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/15/8/255
114.​ Statistical comparison of Prophet and ARIMA/SARIMA models. -
ResearchGate, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Statistical-comparison-of-Prophet-and-ARI
MA-SARIMA-models_fig1_363701373
115.​ Statistical Comparison of Time Series Models for Forecasting Brazilian Monthly
Energy Demand Using Economic, Industrial, and Climatic Exogenous Variables -
MDPI, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/14/13/5846
116.​ A Comprehensive Survey of Time Series Forecasting: Architectural Diversity
and Open Challenges - arXiv, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://arxiv.org/html/2411.05793v1
117.​ ddz16/TSFpaper: This repository contains a reading list of papers on Time
Series Forecasting/Prediction (TSF) and Spatio-Temporal Forecasting/Prediction
(STF). These papers are mainly categorized according to the type of model. -
GitHub, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://github.com/ddz16/TSFpaper
118.​ Stacking & Blending in ML from scratch in Python - Kaggle, accessed on April
16, 2025,
https://www.kaggle.com/code/egazakharenko/stacking-blending-in-ml-from-scra
 tch-in-python
119.​ Ensemble Learning Techniques Tutorial - Kaggle, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://www.kaggle.com/code/pavansanagapati/ensemble-learning-techniques-t
utorial
120.​ 1-Guide to Ensembling methods - Kaggle, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://www.kaggle.com/code/amrmahmoud123/1-guide-to-ensembling-method
s
121.​ Ensemble Learning: Bagging, Boosting & Stacking - Kaggle, accessed on April
16, 2025,
https://www.kaggle.com/code/satishgunjal/ensemble-learning-bagging-boosting
-stacking
122.​ What methods do top Kagglers employ for score gain? - Data Science Stack
Exchange, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://datascience.stackexchange.com/questions/124709/what-methods-do-top
-kagglers-employ-for-score-gain
123.​ Blending Ensemble for Regression Problems - Kaggle, accessed on April 16,
2025,
https://www.kaggle.com/code/ahmedabdulhamid/blending-ensemble-for-regres
sion-problems
124.​ Tips for stacking and blending - Kaggle, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://www.kaggle.com/code/zaochenye/tips-for-stacking-and-blending
125.​ Matt Motoki | Grandmaster - Kaggle, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://www.kaggle.com/mmotoki/discussion
126.​ [2503.10198] Deep Learning for Time Series Forecasting: A Survey - arXiv,
accessed on April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.10198
127.​ Two-stage hybrid models for enhancing forecasting accuracy on
heterogeneous time series, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://arxiv.org/html/2502.08600v1
128.​ Stock-Price Forecasting Based on XGBoost and LSTM, accessed on April 16,
2025,
https://cdn.techscience.cn/ueditor/files/csse/TSP_CSSE-40-1/TSP_CSSE_17685/TSP
_CSSE_17685.pdf
129.​ Stock Price Prediction based on LSTM and XGBoost Combination Model,
accessed on April 16, 2025, https://wepub.org/index.php/TCSISR/article/view/90
130.​ Forecast of LSTM-XGBoost in Stock Price Based on Bayesian Optimization,
accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.techscience.com/iasc/v29n3/43035/html
131.​ A Reference Guide to Feature Engineering Methods - Kaggle, accessed on
April 16, 2025,
https://www.kaggle.com/code/prashant111/a-reference-guide-to-feature-engine
ering-methods
132.​ Use XGBoost for Time-Series Forecasting - Analytics Vidhya, accessed on
April 16, 2025,
https://www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog/2024/01/xgboost-for-time-series-forecast
ing/
133.​ Feature Engineering for Time Series - Kaggle, accessed on April 16, 2025,
 https://www.kaggle.com/code/patrickurbanke/feature-engineering-for-time-serie
s
134.​ Practical Guide for Feature Engineering of Time Series Data - dotData,
accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://dotdata.com/blog/practical-guide-for-feature-engineering-of-time-series
-data/
135.​ Ensemble Methodology: Innovations in Credit Default Prediction Using
LightGBM, XGBoost, and LocalEnsemble - arXiv, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://arxiv.org/html/2402.17979
136.​ Kaggle Past Solutions, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://ndres.me/kaggle-past-solutions/
137.​ The State of Machine Learning Competitions - ML Contests, accessed on April
16, 2025, https://mlcontests.com/state-of-machine-learning-competitions-2024/
138.​ Enefit - Predict Energy Behavior of Prosumers | Kaggle, accessed on April 16,
2025,
https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/predict-energy-behavior-of-prosumers/di
scussion/462266
139.​ This Competition has an Official Discord Channel - Enefit - Predict Energy
Behavior of Prosumers | Kaggle, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/predict-energy-behavior-of-prosumers/di
scussion/452899
140.​ Kaggle Solutions, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://farid.one/kaggle-solutions/
141.​ Winning solutions of kaggle competitions, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://www.kaggle.com/code/sudalairajkumar/winning-solutions-of-kaggle-com
petitions
142.​ Kaggle Winning Solution Methods Review, accessed on April 16, 2025,
https://www.kaggle.com/code/thedrcat/kaggle-winning-solution-methods-revie
w