MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimized Hybrid Neural Network for Wind Speed Forecasting

2022· article· en· W4313562578 on OpenAlexaff
T. M. Rubaith Bashar, Mohammad Munem, Md Safayet Islam, Md Murad Hossain, Tasnim Binte Shawkat, Habibur Rahaman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceWind speedConvolutional neural networkMean squared errorArtificial intelligenceWind powerSupport vector machineArtificial neural networkBayesian optimizationFeature extractionFeature (linguistics)Deep learningPattern recognition (psychology)Random forestFuzzy logicMachine learningMathematicsEngineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Though wind power capacity all over the world is increasing rapidly, the availability of wind power generation mostly reclines on wind speed, which is a random variable with stochastic nature. Therefore, robust technique with powerful feature extraction capability is required to predict wind speed accurately. In this paper, we have recommended a hybrid model using convolutional neural network (CNN) and long-short term memory (LSTM). where CNN is used for extracting fuzzy input features and LSTM to catch the sequence to predict wind speed accurately. As deep learning models are associated with multiple hyper-parameters with great impact, Bayesian optimization algorithm is used for hyper-parameter tuning. Additionally, the performance of some established machine learning models are added on the same data-set. It is observed that, the proposed Bayesian optimized CNN-LSTM hybrid model surpasses the other four established models like SVM, ANN, CNN and LSTM in terms of different performance evaluation metrics like mean absolute error, root mean error and root mean square error.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.621

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.186 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207