Deep Learning-Based Auto-LSTM Approach for Renewable Energy Forecasting: A Hybrid Network Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, renewable energy forecasting has gained increasing attention due to its potential to minimize energy resource usage and maximize the security of power plant operation.Deep learning models have emerged as a promising tool for renewable energy prediction.However, the application of these techniques for renewable energy forecasting remains sparse.In this work, we introduce a deep belief network-based auto-LSTM approach that utilizes a wireless sensor network (WSN) for energy forecasting in solar power plants.We also compare this approach with other deep learning techniques, including long short-term memory (LSTM) and artificial neural networks, as well as traditional models such as Multilayer Perception and physical prediction models.We evaluate the performance of these methods using data from 26 solar plants.Our experimental analysis shows that the proposed auto-LSTM-based deep learning approach outperforms the other models in terms of prediction accuracy, demonstrating its efficiency and effectiveness for renewable energy forecasting in solar power plants.By introducing the inventive auto-LSTM model and assessing its effectiveness in comparison to diverse established techniques, our study not only adds to the current discussions on predictive modeling but also tackles the tangible challenges linked with the integration of renewable energy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".