MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Short-term Wind Power Ramp Forecasting Using Sequential Approach

2024· article· en· W4407691436 on OpenAlexaff
Leechita Gopalakrishnan, Julián Cárdenas-Barrera, N. Sabiyath Fatima

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerm (time)Wind powerWind power forecastingComputer sciencePower (physics)MeteorologyEnvironmental scienceElectric power systemEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As wind energy becomes a key player in the global transition to renewable energy, its variability presents significant challenges. Accurate wind ramp forecasting is crucial for managing such rapid fluctuations in wind power output, ensuring grid stability, and enhancing the reliability of renewable energy integration. This paper presents a short-term wind ramp forecasting model using a sequential approach: initially forecasting wind power through the integration of Variational Mode Decomposition (VMD) and the XGBoost algorithm, and subsequently detecting wind ramps using the Definition Based Sign Indicator (DSI) method. The historical wind speed and power data for Turkey was obtained from Kaggle. The dataset comprises readings from a wind turbine’s SCADA system in Turkey, with measurements recorded at 10minute intervals. Variational Mode Decomposition (VMD) was applied to deconstruct and restore the historical wind power of the wind field, resulting in the formation of three training datasets. Wind power projections for the subsequent 8 hours, at 10 -minute intervals, are generated using historical wind power, wind speed, and wind direction as inputs. The DSI algorithm is employed to identify ramps. To assess the predictive capability of the proposed model, two algorithms, SVR and XGBoost, were employed for forecasting and the resulting error is minimal. The proposed model, VMD + XGBOOST is also compared without VMD to evaluate the performance. Taking mean square error (MSE), root mean square error (RMSE) mean absolute error (MAE), and symmetric mean absolute percentage error (sMAPE) as evaluation indicators, the results show that the forecasted accuracy of wind power is significantly improved after VMD processing. The performance of XGBOOST is better than SVR in the two evaluation indicators. Precision, Recall, and F1-score are calculated to evaluate the accuracy of the predicted wind ramps.

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 score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score0.811

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.249
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 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207