MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807030657 · doi:10.1109/tste.2018.2841938

Analytical Iterative Multistep Interval Forecasts of Wind Generation Based on TLGP

2018· article· en· W2807030657 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Juan Yan, Kang Li, Er‐Wei Bai, Xiaodong Zhao, Yusheng Xue, Aoife Foley

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilQueen's UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaQueen's University BelfastEuropean Commission
KeywordsProbabilistic logicProbabilistic forecastingWind powerWind power forecastingInterval (graph theory)Benchmark (surveying)Computer scienceMathematical optimizationMonte Carlo methodPower system simulationGridElectric power systemKey (lock)Iterative methodConsensus forecastEconometricsPower (physics)EngineeringAlgorithmMathematicsArtificial intelligenceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Probabilistic wind power forecasting has become an important tool for optimal economic dispatch and unit commitment of modern power systems with significant renewable energy penetrations. Ensemble forecasting based on Monte Carlo simulation has been widely adopted by grid operators, but other probabilistic approaches, such as multistep iterative wind power forecasting have not yet been fully explored. The associated uncertainty analysis is an important yet challenging issue in this area. This paper proposes to use an analytic interval forecasting framework to estimate the forecasting uncertainty and its propagation with multisteps for two wind farms based on the temporally local Gaussian process (TLGP) model. The key findings confirm that TLGP forecasting not only has better accuracy but is also more reliable and sharp than other benchmark models. This paper provides an innovative analytical framework for iterative multistep interval forecasts.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Sustainable EnergySame topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207