MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391738567 · doi:10.1007/s10462-023-10678-y

Optimizing long-short-term memory models via metaheuristics for decomposition aided wind energy generation forecasting

2024· article· en· W4391738567 on OpenAlexaff
M. Pavlov, Luka Jovanović, Nebojša Bačanin, Muhammet Deveci, Miodrag Živković, Milan Tuba, Ivana Strumberger, Witold Pedrycz

Bibliographic record

VenueArtificial Intelligence Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersScience Fund of the Republic of Serbia
KeywordsComputer scienceWind powerBenchmark (surveying)MetaheuristicHyperparameterArtificial neural networkRenewable energyDecompositionArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Power supply from renewable energy is an important part of modern power grids. Robust methods for predicting production are required to balance production and demand to avoid losses. This study proposed an approach that incorporates signal decomposition techniques with Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) neural networks tuned via a modified metaheuristic algorithm used for wind power generation forecasting. LSTM networks perform notably well when addressing time-series prediction, and further hyperparameter tuning by a modified version of the reptile search algorithm (RSA) can help improve performance. The modified RSA was first evaluated against standard CEC2019 benchmark instances before being applied to the practical challenge. The proposed tuned LSTM model has been tested against two wind production datasets with hourly resolutions. The predictions were executed without and with decomposition for one, two, and three steps ahead. Simulation outcomes have been compared to LSTM networks tuned by other cutting-edge metaheuristics. It was observed that the introduced methodology notably exceed other contenders, as was later confirmed by the statistical analysis. Finally, this study also provides interpretations of the best-performing models on both observed datasets, accompanied by the analysis of the importance and impact each feature has on the predictions.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations75
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArtificial Intelligence ReviewSame topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207