MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bayesian Optimization Based ANN Model for Short Term Wind Speed Forecasting in Newfoundland, Canada

2020· article· en· W3128928242 on OpenAlexaffabout
Habibur Rahaman, T. M. Rubaith Bashar, Mohammad Munem, Md. Hasibul Hasan Hasib, Hasan Mahmud, Arifin Nur Alif

Bibliographic record

Venue2020 IEEE Electric Power and Energy Conference (EPEC) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperparameterWind speedArtificial neural networkMean squared errorSupport vector machineWind powerComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceRandom forestMachine learningBayesian probabilityMean absolute percentage errorBayesian inferenceTerm (time)MeteorologyStatisticsEngineeringMathematicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wind power capacity around the world is increasing day by day, but the production of wind energy greatly depends on the wind speed, where the wind speed has stochastic nature over time. In this paper, an artificial neural network (ANN) technique to forecast wind speed for the next hour in Newfoundland, Canada is proposed. As, deep learning models are combined with different hyperparameters, in our study, the selection of important hyperparameters are conducted by applying the Bayesian optimization algorithm. The wind speed forecasting performance of the proposed model is compared with other recognized models like support vector machine (SVM), random forest (R.F.) and decision tree (D.T.), where it is observed that our proposed model performs better than the other models in terms of mean absolute error (M.A.E.) and root mean squared error (R.M.S.E.). The proposed Bayesian optimized artificial neural network is fed with five input features and delivers M.A.E. and R.M.S.E. of 1.09 and 1.45.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.177 · 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.

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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2020 IEEE Electric Power and Energy Conference (EPEC)Same topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207