Comparative analysis of deep neural network architectures for renewable energy forecasting: enhancing accuracy with meteorological and time-based features
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
This study evaluates and differentiates five advanced machine learning models—LSTM, GRU, CNN-LSTM, Random Forest, and SVR—aimed at precisely estimating solar and wind power generation to enhance renewable energy forecasting. LSTM achieved a remarkable Mean Squared Error (MSE) of 0.010 and R 2 score of 0.90, highlighting its proficiency in capturing intricate temporal relationships. GRU closely followed, demonstrating potential as a viable option due to its remarkable combination of computational efficiency and accuracy (MSE = 0.015, R 2 = 0.88). In datasets abundant in spatial correlations, the CNN-LSTM hybrid demonstrated its utility by providing novel insights into spatial–temporal patterns; nonetheless, it lagged considerably in accuracy, with a mean squared error (MSE) of 0.020 and a R 2 of 0.87. Conversely, traditional models demonstrated a reliable albeit less dynamic ability to elucidate the complexities of renewable energy data; for instance, Random Forest exhibited a mean squared error (MSE) of 0.025, while Support Vector Regression (SVR) recorded an MSE of 0.030. The results affirm that deep learning architectures, particularly LSTM, offer a transformative method for renewable energy forecasting, hence enhancing accuracy and reliability in energy management systems.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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