Extreme Low-State Quantized Transformer for Electricity-Load Forecasting
Authors: Muhammad Sabbir Alam, Harindra Sandun Mavikumbure, Victor Cobilean, Milos Manic, Jayasimha Atulasimha
Organizations: Department of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, 23284, USA · Department of Computer Science, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, 23284, USA · Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, 23284, USA
Aggressive low-state weight quantization can substantially reduce neural-network representational flexibility, making predictive performance difficult to preserve when only a few discrete weight states are available. We investigate this regime for Transformer-based electricity-load forecasting using 3-, 5-, 7-, and 16-state weight quantization across feed-forward-only and attention-plus-feed-forward quantization. Two tasks predict either the next hour or the next 24 hours from the preceding 48 hours across two co-primary electricity-consumption datasets. Direct post-training quantization (PTQ) increased mean normalized root-mean-square error (NRMSE) relative to full precision by 6.25 and 7.04 percentage points in Datasets A and B, whereas quantization-aware fine-tuning (QAT-FT) recovered approximately 90.2% and 94.5% of these penalties. Quantization-aware training from random initialization (Scratch-QAT) also produced competitive low-state solutions, with particularly favorable behavior at three states. We further introduce accumulated-update thresholding, which accumulates optimizer-proposed weight changes before commitment. Relative to paired Scratch-QAT controls, this reduced committed shadow-weight updates by approximately 99.7% and discrete state transitions by approximately 77--80%, while mean NRMSE changed by only +0.042 and +0.197 percentage points. These results show that useful Transformer forecasting can be retained under highly discrete weight representations while strongly suppressing target-state activity, supporting a prospective route toward compact, low-activity edge forecasting using multilevel synaptic devices.
Figures & tables
Dataset A
Dataset B
Source
UCI ElectricityLoadDiagrams20112014
UCI Individual Household Electric Power Consumption
Role
Co-primary
Co-primary dataset
Series
MT_004, MT_022, MT_324
Household_Power
Distinct series
3
1
Modeling resolution
Hourly mean from 15-minute measurements
Hourly
Study period
2012-01-01 through 2014-12-31
2007-01-01 through 2009-12-31
Table 1: Co-primary datasets and forecasting protocol.
Dataset
Stage
Training period
Validation / test period
Dataset A
Fold 1
Jan 2012–Dec 2012
Jan 2013–Jun 2013
Fold 2
Jan 2012–Jun 2013
Jul 2013–Dec 2013
Fold 3
Jan 2012–Dec 2013
Jan 2014–Jun 2014
Final
Jan 2012–30 Jun 2014
1 Jul–31 Dec 2014, final test
Dataset B
Fold 1
Jan 2007–Dec 2007
Jan 2008–Jun 2008
Fold 2
Jan 2007–Jun 2008
Jul 2008–Dec 2008
Table 2: Chronological development and final evaluation protocol
ki(0)←index[QL(wi(0))]
Algorithm 1 Accumulated-update thresholding for Scratch-QAT
Metric
Dataset A
Dataset B
FP NRMSE (%)
11.3299
57.7067
PTQ NRMSE (%)
17.5770
64.7475
PTQ penalty vs. FP (pp)
+6.2471
+7.0408
QAT-FT NRMSE (%)
11.9424
58.0938
PTQ penalty recovered by QAT-FT (%)
90.1957
94.5019
Scratch α=0 E40 NRMSE (%)
11.8001
57.6379
Table 3: Headline forecasting and accumulated-update results across the two co-primary datasets.
Dataset
Series
PTQ − FP (pp)
QAT-FT − PTQ (pp)
Commit reduction (%)
Transition reduction (%)
Dataset A
MT_004
+7.4708
-7.0838
99.7391
80.5192
Dataset A
MT_022
+7.2828
-5.9642
99.6379
76.6080
Dataset A
MT_324
+3.9878
-3.8559
99.8044
82.7968
Dataset B
Household_Power
+7.0408
-6.6537
99.6741
77.0203
Table 4: Series-level mean effects across the four load series.
Factor
Levels
PTQ degradation
QAT-FT improvement over PTQ
Commit reduction
Transition reduction
State count
4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
Forecast horizon
2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
Quantization location
2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
Table 5: Cross-dataset directional concordance across the principal experimental factors.
Primary effect
Expected direction
Four-series mean
LOO mean range
All four LOO analyses retain direction
PTQ degradation vs FP (pp)
Positive
+6.4455
+6.1038 to +7.2648
Yes
QAT-FT improvement vs PTQ (pp)
Negative
-5.8894
-6.5672 to -5.4913
Yes
High- α commit reduction (%)
Positive
99.7139
99.6837 to 99.7392
Yes
High- α transition reduction (%)
Positive
79.2361
78.0492 to 80.1121
Yes
Table 6: Leave-one-series-out sensitivity of the four primary effects.
University of Greenwich, London, United Kingdom · Fractal Analytics, QuantumAI Lab, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India · eBRAIN Lab, Division of Engineering, New York University Abu Dhabi (NYUAD), Abu Dhabi, UAE +1