A Comparative Analysis of the ARIMA and LSTM Predictive Models and Their Effectiveness for Predicting Wind Speed
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forecasting wind speed has become one of the most attractive topics to researchers in the field of renewable energy due to its use in generating clean energy, and the capacity for integrating it into the electric grid. There are several methods and models for time series forecasting at the present time. Advancements in deep learning methods characterize the possibility of establishing a more developed multistep prediction model than shallow neural networks (SNNs). However, the accuracy and adequacy of long-term wind speed prediction is not yet well resolved. This study aims to find the most effective predictive model for time series, with less errors and higher accuracy in the predictions, using artificial neural networks (ANNs), recurrent neural networks (RNNs), and long short-term memory (LSTM), which is a special type of RNN model, compared to the common autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA). The results are measured by the root mean square error (RMSE) method. The comparison result shows that the LSTM method is more accurate than ARIMA.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it