MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2986912224 · doi:10.1109/poweri.2014.7117664

Multi step ahead forecasting of wind power by genetic algorithm based neural networks

2014· article· en· W2986912224 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sumit Saroha, S. K. Aggarwal

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkMean absolute percentage errorTime seriesWind powerComputer scienceMean squared errorGenetic algorithmFeedforward neural networkAlgorithmMetric (unit)Series (stratigraphy)Wind speedPerformance metricArtificial intelligenceMachine learningStatisticsEngineeringMathematicsMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In present day scenario statistical (time series) and physical (NWP) models are utilized for wind power forecasting and many of them are using neural networks to obtain greater accuracy of wind power prediction at final stage. In a time series framework, forecasting is categorised into two ways single step ahead and multi-step ahead. In this paper an advanced time-series model for multi-step ahead wind power prediction based on artificial intelligence techniques is presented. This method requires an input of past measurements for prediction & input is settled on the basis of statistical tool called Auto Correlation Function (ACF). Genetic Algorithms based Neural Network (GANN) and Feed Forward Neural Network (FFNN) trained by Levenberg-Marquardt (LM) training algorithm are employed. Mean absolute error (MAE) and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) are considered as the performance metric and both models are also compared with persistence model. The data of wind power has been collected from Ontario Electricity Market for the year 2009-12 and tested for one year up to 12 multi-steps ahead forecasting. It has been observed that GANN gives better performance as compared to FFNN.

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 score0.775
Threshold uncertainty score0.787

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207