Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · November 5, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Energy forecasting models are usually compared on backtests and fixed public datasets. Backtests can use data that did not yet exist when the forecast would have been made, and a fixed test set, reused across studies and possibly contained in the pretraining data of foundation models, invites overfitting to the benchmark. EnergyBench evaluates every entry live instead. Each day at 11:30 CET/CEST, thirty minutes before the day-ahead (SDAC) gate closes, every model forecasts the next day's price, wind and solar generation and load on the 15-minute grid for six bidding zones (BE, NL, FR, DE-LU, DK1, DK2). Unlike existing live benchmarks, EnergyBench runs the models itself, on one information set that it freezes at the cut-off and publishes, including three numerical weather prediction models, so that foundation models can be compared with and without the same weather covariates under the actual market deadline. Errors are pooled per series against a seasonal-naive baseline, and models are ranked by a Bradley-Terry rating on the Elo scale with a day-bootstrap interval. The field spans baselines, linear and gradient-boosted models on the frozen weather, eighteen time-series foundation models from eleven families, ensembles, and the grid operators' own forecasts. Over the first thirty-two live days, the covariates reduced the error of each of the ten foundation models run with and without them by 37-51% on matched races (64-73% on wind, 48-61% on solar). Used zero-shot, these models match or outperform a LightGBM model trained on the same covariates. Model size, from 3M to 331M parameters, has a much smaller effect, and median ensembles of the covariate models rank highest. The grid operators' pre-gate forecasts remain ahead on wind and solar, where the best single foundation models have 16-22% more error; on load the gap is 4-6%, within the intervals.