Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Climate Aware Deep Neural Networks (CADNN) for Wind Power Simulation

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that LSTM networks trained on CMIP6 climate data can accurately simulate wind power at German wind farm sites, outperforming MLP and Transformer-enhanced LSTM models.

desk verdict Useful CMIP6-to-site data pipeline and open package, but the evaluation contradicts its own split protocol and never measures error against real wind power. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12160 v1 pith:ON4BSUX5 submitted 2024-12-11 cs.LG cs.AI

Ali Forootani , Danial Esmaeili Aliabadi , Daniela Thraen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords windpowerforecastingCMIP6LSTMdeepneuralnetworksclimatedataspeedsurfacepressurerenewableenergysimulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that deep neural networks can turn coarse CMIP6 climate projections into localized wind power predictions at German wind farm sites, and that among three architectures, LSTM networks do this best. The authors build a preprocessing pipeline that rotates coordinates, interpolates wind speed and surface pressure onto farm locations, resamples to three-hour intervals, and scales inputs. They then compare an MLP, an LSTM, and a Transformer-enhanced LSTM on the same five-feature input. The central result is that the LSTM tracks the target wind power series closely, while the MLP and Transformer-LSTM show large errors. The authors present this as a first step toward climate-aware renewable energy forecasting that can be adapted to other regions.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a data pipeline plus an LSTM regressor. CMIP6 wind speed and surface pressure fields on a rotated-pole grid are transformed to geographic coordinates, matched to wind farm locations by KD-tree nearest-neighbor search, linearly interpolated to the farm points, resampled to the target time grid, and min-max scaled to $[-1,1]$. The LSTM takes five inputs (time, latitude, longitude, wind speed, surface pressure) through six stacked LSTM layers with 128 hidden units and outputs one wind power value. The SIREN-based MLP and the Transformer-enhanced LSTM use the same inputs, providing the comparison.

What would settle it

Retrain the same LSTM on publicly reported wind farm power measurements using a chronological train/test split and compare against the simulation-target version and against a persistence forecast; if accuracy drops sharply or fails to beat persistence, the claim that the models accurately forecast wind power is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that LSTM networks trained on processed CMIP6 climate variables can accurately simulate wind power generation, and that this climate-aware approach significantly improves forecasting accuracy over the alternatives considered. The target values used for training and evaluation are not direct measurements but outputs of the wind power simulation model [60], so the demonstration is that the LSTM learns to reproduce that simulation from wind speed and surface pressure inputs. The LSTM outperforms the MLP and the Transformer-enhanced LSTM, which the authors attribute to the LSTM's gating mechanisms for sequential and long-term dependencies.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the outputs of the wind power simulation model [60] can stand in for true wind power values; if that simulation is inaccurate or unrepresentative, the reported forecasting accuracy has no real-world meaning, and the random 90/10 split adds leakage risk because wind power is autocorrelated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, LSTM networks can act as fast surrogate models that map CMIP6 climate output directly to wind power, avoiding heavy physics-based simulation at individual farm sites.
  • The preprocessing recipe, including rotated-pole coordinate transformation, KD-tree nearest-neighbor matching, linear interpolation, and min-max scaling, becomes a reusable template for other regions with CMIP6 coverage.
  • The result suggests that adding climate model inputs rather than only historical power measurements is a viable route for forecasting under changing climate conditions.
  • The comparison indicates that the extra complexity of Transformer attention over an LSTM does not pay off for this dataset, guiding architecture choice for similar climate-to-power tasks.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: because the evaluation target is the simulation model [60] rather than observed wind farm output, the paper's accuracy claim is strictly about reproducing that simulation; a real-world validation against measurements is a necessary next step.
  • Editorial inference: the random 90/10 split likely inflates reported accuracy, since wind power is strongly autocorrelated and nearby time steps probably appear in both training and testing sets; a chronological split would be a stricter test.
  • Editorial inference: a direct test of practical value would be the same LSTM trained on observed wind power data with a chronological split and benchmarked against a persistence forecast; if it cannot beat persistence, its forecasting advantage is unproven.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper presents a framework, CADNN, for emulating wind power generation at 232 German wind farm locations using CMIP6 3-hourly wind speed and surface pressure data. After spatial interpolation and temporal resampling, three deep architectures are trained and compared: a SIREN-based MLP, a stacked LSTM, and a Transformer-enhanced LSTM. The abstract and Section 2.1 claim that the climate-aware DNNs 'significantly enhance forecasting accuracy' and that LSTM networks are the superior architecture. The authors also release a Python package with code and data-processing tools. A central complication is that the target values are not observed wind power time series: Figure 10 and related captions identify the 'true measurement model' as the simulation model of Lehneis and Thrän [60].

Significance. The general idea of using CMIP6 predictors to emulate a regional wind power model is potentially useful for climate-scenario studies, and the manuscript has concrete strengths: publicly released code, a reproducible data-processing pipeline, and a comparison of several deep architectures on a substantial dataset. However, the evaluation as written does not support the central claim. The paper reports no quantitative error metrics, describes a contradictory train/test split (random in Section 5.4 versus chronological in Section 5.1 and Algorithm 3), and uses the outputs of a simulation model rather than observed wind power as the target. The claimed 'significant enhancement' of forecasting accuracy is therefore not established. These issues are correctable through re-analysis and careful reframing, but they are load-bearing and require substantial revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.4 vs §5.1 and Algorithm 3] The train/test split protocol is contradictory. Section 5.1 states that the split 'is carried out chronologically to maintain the sequential nature of the data and avoid potential data leakage,' and Algorithm 3 Step 1 says to partition the data while 'preserving the time order of samples.' Section 5.4, however, states that 'out of total number of 679296 samples ... 90% is randomly chosen for training the DNN structures and remaining 10% for testing the results.' These statements cannot both be true. A random split of a 3-hourly, strongly autocorrelated wind power series interleaves test samples with training samples, so the LSTM can succeed by interpolating or copying temporally adjacent values rather than forecasting unseen periods. This invalidates the qualitative evidence offered for LSTM superiority; a single, clearly specified chronological split must be used and reported.
  2. [§5.4, Figures 9–17] The paper reports no quantitative forecast error metrics. The evaluation consists of scatter plots, histograms of residuals, and line plots; there is no RMSE, MAE, R², MAPE, skill score, or persistence baseline anywhere in Section 5. The abstract's claim that the DNN models 'significantly enhance forecasting accuracy' and Section 2.1's assertion that 'LSTM networks outperform others' therefore have no numerical basis. At minimum, each architecture should be evaluated with a standard error metric on a chronologically held-out test set, and the comparison should include a persistence or climatology baseline.
  3. [§5.4, Figure 10 caption] The target variable is not observed wind power. The captions of Figures 10, 12, 13, 16, and 17 state that 'the true measurement model came from Lehneis and Thrän [60]'; reference [60] is itself a simulation model of wind power generation in Germany. The abstract, by contrast, describes capturing relationships between CMIP data and 'actual wind power generation at wind farms located in Germany.' Training and evaluating against outputs of [60] measures how well the DNNs emulate that reference model, not how well they forecast real-world wind power. The authors should either reframe the contribution as emulation of the reference model or validate the approach against independent wind power observations.
  4. [§2.1 and §5.4] The architecture-comparison claim is not supported by the reported evidence. Section 2.1 asserts that LSTM networks outperform other architectures, but the supporting discussion in Section 5.4 is qualitative ('the scatter plot demonstrates a strong correlation,' 'a weak correlation,' etc.). No numerical comparisons, convergence curves, repeated-seed variability, or statistical tests are provided, and the random-split problem affects all three models equally. The conclusion that LSTM is the preferred architecture is an assertion rather than a demonstrated result.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Figure captions 10, 12, 13, 16, 17] These captions contain the duplicated phrase 'came came'; they should be corrected and should refer to 'reference model output' rather than 'true measurement model,' which conflates observation with simulation.
  2. [Title and Sections 1–6] The terminology is inconsistent between 'wind power simulation' (title, Section 5.1, Algorithm 3) and 'forecasting'/'prediction' (abstract, Sections 2.1, 5, and 6). The authors should choose one task definition and apply it consistently.
  3. [Throughout] Several language and formatting issues remain, including Figure 7's 'Wind power generation power,' Section 5.4's 'The histogram of prediction in fig. 11 errors,' and the keyword list ending with a dangling comma ('LSTM)-DNN, .'). A careful copyedit is needed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No formal circularity: the DNNs learn a mapping from CMIP6 climate variables to the Lehneis–Thrän simulation output, which is not equal to the input by construction; the main caveats are a co-authored simulation used as the 'true' target and an internal split inconsistency that is a leakage/correctness issue rather than circularity.

  1. other [Figure 10 caption and Section 5.4 ('DNN simulation setups')]
    "It is worth to highlight that the true measurement model came came from Lehneis and Thr¨ an [60]."

    This sentence reveals that the evaluation target is not observed wind power but the output of [60], a wind-power simulation co-authored by D. Thrän, a co-author of the present paper. Since the DNN inputs are CMIP6 wind speed and surface pressure—the same meteorological drivers that feed [60]—the benchmark measures self-referential fit to an in-group simulation rather than validation against independent measurements. This is scored as a minor self-citation/self-referential validation issue, not as a formal tautology: the DNN predictions are not equal to their inputs by construction, and the models can still fail to reproduce [60]'s outputs. The random 90/10 split described in §5.4 is a separate temporal-leakage/correctness concern, not a circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: CMIP6 wind speed and surface pressure are spatially interpolated to 232 German wind-farm locations, resampled to 3-hourly steps, normalized, and fed to MLP/LSTM/LSTM-Transformer models whose target is wind power from the Lehneis–Thrän simulation [60]. No equation in the paper defines the predicted wind power as the input, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The central comparison among architectures is an empirical fitting exercise, so the claim that LSTM performs best is not forced by construction. The main self-referential element is that the 'true measurement model' is [60], which shares an author with this paper; nevertheless, fitting a DNN to a simulation output is a surrogate-modeling task with genuine learning content, so this is at most a minor self-citation issue. The contradiction between the chronological split promised in §5.1 and Algorithm 3 and the random 90/10 split executed in §5.4 is serious—wind power at 3-hour resolution is autocorrelated, so random splitting can leak near-duplicate temporal information into the test set—but it is a validity/leakage flaw, not circularity, and is outside the enumerated circularity patterns. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz-via-citation, or renaming of a known result is present. Overall circularity score: 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The reported results depend on a set of hand-picked hyperparameters, a random data split that contradicts the stated chronological protocol, and two domain assumptions: that the Lehneis and Thrän simulation output is an acceptable ground truth, and that wind power is a function only of the five inputs. No invented entities appear.

free parameters (3)
  • DNN hyperparameters (layers, hidden units, learning rate, epochs) = 6 layers, 128 hidden units (MLP/LSTM), 64 units (LSTM-Transformer), 30000 epochs, LR 1e-5 (MLP) / 1e-3 (LSTM…
    Chosen by hand without sensitivity analysis; the central comparison depends on these settings.
  • Train/test split ratio and random seed = 90% train / 10% test, random split, seed not reported
    The random split contradicts the stated chronological split and introduces temporal leakage; the absence of a seed prevents reproduction.
  • Temporal resampling interval = 3-hour
    CMIP6 data is at 3-hour resolution and wind power data is resampled to match; this discards sub-3-hour variability.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The Lehneis and Thrän [60] simulation output provides ground truth for wind power generation.
    All training targets and 'true' values in figures come from this model, not from SCADA or measured wind farm data; the paper calls these 'true measurements'.
  • domain assumption Wind power at each site is a deterministic function of time, coordinates, CMIP6 wind speed, and surface pressure.
    The DNNs are trained to map these five inputs to power, assuming no other drivers (turbine status, wake effects, curtailment) are needed.
  • ad hoc to paper A random split of a time series into 90% training and 10% testing does not leak information.
    The paper actually uses a random split in Section 5.4 while claiming chronological split in Algorithm 3; due to autocorrelation, this assumption is false and inflates apparent accuracy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Climate Aware Deep Neural Networks (CADNN) for Wind Power Simulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ON4BSUX5

@misc{pith2026241212160,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Climate Aware Deep Neural Networks (CADNN) for Wind Power Simulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ON4BSUX5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12160}
}
read the original abstract

Wind power forecasting plays a critical role in modern energy systems, facilitating the integration of renewable energy sources into the power grid. Accurate prediction of wind energy output is essential for managing the inherent intermittency of wind power, optimizing energy dispatch, and ensuring grid stability. This paper proposes the use of Deep Neural Network (DNN)-based predictive models that leverage climate datasets, including wind speed, atmospheric pressure, temperature, and other meteorological variables, to improve the accuracy of wind power simulations. In particular, we focus on the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) datasets, which provide climate projections, as inputs for training the DNN models. These models aim to capture the complex nonlinear relationships between the CMIP-based climate data and actual wind power generation at wind farms located in Germany. Our study compares various DNN architectures, specifically Multilayer Perceptron (MLP), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks, and Transformer-enhanced LSTM models, to identify the best configuration among these architectures for climate-aware wind power simulation. The implementation of this framework involves the development of a Python package (CADNN) designed to support multiple tasks, including statistical analysis of the climate data, data visualization, preprocessing, DNN training, and performance evaluation. We demonstrate that the DNN models, when integrated with climate data, significantly enhance forecasting accuracy. This climate-aware approach offers a deeper understanding of the time-dependent climate patterns that influence wind power generation, providing more accurate predictions and making it adaptable to other geographical regions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12160 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Average surface wind speed for Europe on 2020-01-01 at 00:00:00 from CMIP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Surface Wind Speed for the entire year 2020 at coordinates: Lat 49 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Interpolation of wind speed over Germany computed by algorithm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Wind speed with the resolution of 3 hours at locations of operational wind power [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of wind speeds across the dataset for the year 2020. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of pressure surface across the dataset for the year 2020. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Wind power generation power in 2020 at time step 00:00:00, with resolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Deep learning architecture for wind power simulation. (a) climate dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Prediction errors versus ground truth values in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparing MLP based DNN versus true measurements for wind power simulation. It is worth to highlight that the true measurement model came came from Lehneis and Thr¨an [60]. References [1] S. Oberth¨ur, Hard or soft governance? the eu’s climate and energy policy framew…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Prediction errors versus ground truth values in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparing LSTM based DNN versus true measurements for wind power power simulation. It is worth to highlight that the true measurement model came came from Lehneis and Thr¨an [60]. resources in europe under present and future climate, Annals of the New York Academy of …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparing LSTM based DNN versus true measurements for wind power simula￾tion. It is worth to highlight that the true measurement model came came from Lehneis and Thr¨an [60]. [17] A. A. Akinsanola, K. O. Ogunjobi, A. T. Abolude, S. Salack, Projected changes in wind sp…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Prediction errors versus ground truth values in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Comparing Transformer-LSTM based DNN versus true measurements for wind power production forecast 36 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Comparing Transformer-LSTM based DNN versus true measurements for wind power simulation. It is worth to highlight that the true measurement model came came from Lehneis and Thr¨an [60] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Comparing Transformer-LSTM based DNN versus true measurements and LSTMbased DNN for wind power simulation. It is worth to highlight that the true mea￾surement model came came from Lehneis and Thr¨an [60]. 37 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Synthetic Time Series Forecasting with Transformer Architectures: Extensive Simulation Benchmarks

    cs.LG 2025-05 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    Autoformer and PatchTST outperform Informer across synthetic forecasting benchmarks, while a proposed Koopman-Transformer hybrid is illustrated on Van der Pol and Lorenz systems.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [60]

    Lehneis, D

    R. Lehneis, D. Thr¨ an, Temporally and spatially resolved simulation of the wind power generation in germany, Energies 16 (2023) 3239. 41

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Oberth¨ ur, Hard or soft governance? the eu’s climate and energy policy framework for 2030, Politics and Governance 7 (2019) 17–27

    S. Oberth¨ ur, Hard or soft governance? the eu’s climate and energy policy framework for 2030, Politics and Governance 7 (2019) 17–27

    work page 2019

  3. [2]

    Asiaban, N

    S. Asiaban, N. Kayedpour, A. E. Samani, D. Bozalakov, J. D. De Koon- ing, G. Crevecoeur, L. Vandevelde, Wind and solar intermittency and the associated integration challenges: A comprehensive review including the status in the belgian power system, Energies 14 (2021) 2630

    work page 2021

  4. [3]

    Zhang, W

    L. Zhang, W. Song, E. Sun, Q. Zhang, D. Wu, F. Chen, Y. Liu, A high-altitude wind resource assessment method for decentralized wind power based on improved linear regression, Renewable Energy (2024) 121968

    work page 2024

  5. [4]

    Carvalho, A

    D. Carvalho, A. Rocha, M. G´ omez-Gesteira, C. S. Santos, Potential impacts of climate change on european wind energy resource under the cmip5 future climate projections, Renewable Energy 101 (2017) 29–40

    work page 2017

  6. [5]

    Carvalho, A

    D. Carvalho, A. Rocha, M. G´ omez-Gesteira, Ocean surface wind sim- ulation forced by different reanalyses: Comparison with observed data along the iberian peninsula coast, Ocean Modelling 56 (2012) 31–42. 32 Figure 11: Prediction errors versus ground truth values in LSTM-DNN

    work page 2012

  7. [6]

    S. C. Pryor, R. J. Barthelmie, Climate change impacts on wind energy: A review, Renewable and sustainable energy reviews 14 (2010) 430–437

    work page 2010

  8. [7]

    Ahmadalipour, A

    A. Ahmadalipour, A. Rana, H. Moradkhani, A. Sharma, Multi-criteria evaluation of cmip5 gcms for climate change impact analysis, Theoretical and applied climatology 128 (2017) 71–87

    work page 2017

Show all 60 references
  1. [8]

    Eyring, S

    V. Eyring, S. Bony, G. A. Meehl, C. A. Senior, B. Stevens, R. J. Stouffer, K. E. Taylor, Overview of the coupled model intercomparison project phase 6 (cmip6) experimental design and organization, Geoscientific Model Development 9 (2016) 1937–1958

    2016

  2. [9]

    Lovato, D

    T. Lovato, D. Peano, M. Butensch¨ on, S. Materia, D. Iovino, E. Scoc- cimarro, P. Fogli, A. Cherchi, A. Bellucci, S. Gualdi, et al., Cmip6 simulations with the cmcc earth system model (cmcc-esm2), Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 14 (2022) e2021MS002814

    2022

  3. [10]

    Reyers, J

    M. Reyers, J. Moemken, J. G. Pinto, Future changes of wind energy potentials over europe in a large cmip5 multi-model ensemble., Interna- tional Journal of Climatology 36 (2016)

    2016

  4. [11]

    deCastro, X

    M. deCastro, X. Costoya, S. Salvador, D. Carvalho, M. G´ omez-Gesteira, F. J. Sanz-Larruga, L. Gimeno, An overview of offshore wind energy 33 Figure 12: Comparing LSTM based DNN versus true measurements for wind power power simulation. It is worth to highlight that the true me...

    2019

  5. [12]

    Santos, M

    F. Santos, M. G´ omez-Gesteira, M. DeCastro, J. A˜ nel, D. Carvalho, X. Costoya, J. Dias, On the accuracy of cordex rcms to project fu- ture winds over the iberian peninsula and surrounding ocean, Applied Energy 228 (2018) 289–300

    2018

  6. [13]

    Costoya, A

    X. Costoya, A. Rocha, D. Carvalho, Using bias-correction to improve future projections of offshore wind energy resource: A case study on the iberian peninsula, Applied Energy 262 (2020) 114562

    2020

  7. [14]

    Chen, Impacts of climate change on wind resources over north america based on na-cordex, Renewable energy 153 (2020) 1428–1438

    L. Chen, Impacts of climate change on wind resources over north america based on na-cordex, Renewable energy 153 (2020) 1428–1438

    2020

  8. [15]

    Costoya, M

    X. Costoya, M. DeCastro, D. Carvalho, M. G´ omez-Gesteira, On the suitability of offshore wind energy resource in the united states of amer- ica for the 21st century, Applied Energy 262 (2020) 114537

    2020

  9. [16]

    Costoya, M

    X. Costoya, M. DeCastro, D. Carvalho, Z. Feng, M. G´ omez-Gesteira, Climate change impacts on the future offshore wind energy resource in china, Renewable Energy 175 (2021) 731–747. 34 Figure 13: Comparing LSTM based DNN versus true measurements for wind power simula- tion. It...

    2021

  10. [17]

    A. A. Akinsanola, K. O. Ogunjobi, A. T. Abolude, S. Salack, Projected changes in wind speed and wind energy potential over west africa in cmip6 models, Environmental Research Letters 16 (2021) 044033

    2021

  11. [18]

    Akhtar, B

    N. Akhtar, B. Geyer, B. Rockel, P. S. Sommer, C. Schrum, Accelerating deployment of offshore wind energy alter wind climate and reduce future power generation potentials, Scientific reports 11 (2021) 11826

    2021

  12. [19]

    P. M. Soares, D. C. Lima, A. Semedo, W. Cabos, D. V. Sein, Climate change impact on northwestern african offshore wind energy resources, Environmental Research Letters 14 (2019) 124065

    2019

  13. [20]

    Carvalho, A

    D. Carvalho, A. Rocha, X. Costoya, M. DeCastro, M. G´ omez-Gesteira, Wind energy resource over europe under CMIP6 future climate projec- tions: What changes from CMIP5 to CMIP6, Renewable and Sustain- able Energy Reviews 151 (2021) 111594

    2021

  14. [21]

    B. G. Brown, R. W. Katz, A. H. Murphy, Time series models to simulate and forecast wind speed and wind power, Journal of Applied Meteorol- ogy and Climatology 23 (1984) 1184–1195

    1984

  15. [22]

    Y. Liu, J. Shi, Y. Yang, W.-J. Lee, Short-term wind-power predic- tion based on wavelet transform–support vector machine and statistic- 35 Figure 14: Prediction errors versus ground truth values in Transformer-based LSTM-DNN. Figure 15: Comparing Transformer-LSTM based DNN ver...

    2012

  16. [23]

    X. Yuan, C. Chen, Y. Yuan, Y. Huang, Q. Tan, Short-term wind power prediction based on lssvm–gsa model, Energy Conversion and Manage- ment 101 (2015) 393–401

    2015

  17. [24]

    D. Lee, R. Baldick, Short-term wind power ensemble prediction based on gaussian processes and neural networks, IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid 5 (2013) 501–510

    2013

  18. [25]

    Pinson, H

    P. Pinson, H. A. Nielsen, H. Madsen, G. Kariniotakis, Skill forecasting from ensemble predictions of wind power, Applied Energy 86 (2009) 1326–1334

    2009

  19. [26]

    M. G. De Giorgi, A. Ficarella, M. Tarantino, Error analysis of short term wind power prediction models, Applied Energy 88 (2011) 1298–1311

    2011

  20. [27]

    Bhaskar, S

    K. Bhaskar, S. N. Singh, A WNN-assisted wind power forecasting using feed-forward neural network, IEEE transactions on sustainable energy 3 (2012) 306–315

    2012

  21. [28]

    Abedinia, N

    O. Abedinia, N. Amjady, Short-term wind power prediction based on hy- brid neural network and chaotic shark smell optimization, International journal of precision engineering and manufacturing-green technology 2 (2015) 245–254

    2015

  22. [29]

    M. C. Mabel, E. Fernandez, Analysis of wind power generation and prediction using ANN: A case study, Renewable energy 33 (2008) 986– 992

    2008

  23. [30]

    Chitsaz, N

    H. Chitsaz, N. Amjady, H. Zareipour, Wind power forecast using wavelet neural network trained by improved clonal selection algorithm, Energy conversion and Management 89 (2015) 588–598

    2015

  24. [31]

    Grassi, P

    G. Grassi, P. Vecchio, Wind energy prediction using a two-hidden layer neural network, Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation 15 (2010) 2262–2266

    2010

  25. [32]

    T. Hong, P. Pinson, S. Fan, Global energy forecasting competition 2012, 2014. 38

    2012

  26. [33]

    M. Lei, L. Shiyan, J. Chuanwen, L. Hongling, Z. Yan, A review on the forecasting of wind speed and generated power, Renewable and sustainable energy reviews 13 (2009) 915–920

    2009

  27. [34]

    Y. Bao, H. Wang, B. Wang, Short-term wind power prediction using differential emd and relevance vector machine, Neural Computing and Applications 25 (2014) 283–289

    2014

  28. [35]

    Costa, A

    A. Costa, A. Crespo, J. Navarro, G. Lizcano, H. Madsen, E. Feitosa, A review on the young history of the wind power short-term prediction, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 12 (2008) 1725–1744

    2008

  29. [36]

    A. M. Foley, P. G. Leahy, A. Marvuglia, E. J. McKeogh, Current meth- ods and advances in forecasting of wind power generation, Renewable energy 37 (2012) 1–8

    2012

  30. [37]

    Tascikaraoglu, M

    A. Tascikaraoglu, M. Uzunoglu, A review of combined approaches for prediction of short-term wind speed and power, Renewable and Sustain- able Energy Reviews 34 (2014) 243–254

    2014

  31. [38]

    H. Peng, F. Liu, X. Yang, A hybrid strategy of short term wind power prediction, Renewable Energy 50 (2013) 590–595

    2013

  32. [39]

    Pinson, H

    P. Pinson, H. Madsen, H. A. Nielsen, G. Papaefthymiou, B. Kl¨ ockl, From probabilistic forecasts to statistical scenarios of short-term wind power production, Wind Energy: An International Journal for Progress and Applications in Wind Power Conversion Technology 12 (2009) 51–62

    2009

  33. [40]

    H. A. Nielsen, H. Madsen, T. S. Nielsen, Using quantile regression to extend an existing wind power forecasting system with probabilistic forecasts, Wind Energy: An International Journal for Progress and Applications in Wind Power Conversion Technology 9 (2006) 95–108

    2006

  34. [41]

    Salcedo-Sanz, A

    S. Salcedo-Sanz, A. M. Perez-Bellido, E. G. Ortiz-Garc ´ ıa, A. Portilla- Figueras, L. Prieto, F. Correoso, Accurate short-term wind speed pre- diction by exploiting diversity in input data using banks of artificial neural networks, Neurocomputing 72 (2009) 1336–1341

    2009

  35. [42]

    Troncoso, S

    A. Troncoso, S. Salcedo-Sanz, C. Casanova-Mateo, J. Riquelme, L. Pri- eto, Local models-based regression trees for very short-term wind speed prediction, Renewable Energy 81 (2015) 589–598. 39

    2015

  36. [43]

    E. G. Ortiz-Garc ´ ıa, S. Salcedo-Sanz, ´A. M. P´ erez-Bellido, J. Gasc´ on- Moreno, J. A. Portilla-Figueras, L. Prieto, Short-term wind speed pre- diction in wind farms based on banks of support vector machines, Wind Energy 14 (2011) 193–207

    2011

  37. [44]

    Zhang, J

    W. Zhang, J. Wang, J. Wang, Z. Zhao, M. Tian, Short-term wind speed forecasting based on a hybrid model, Applied Soft Computing 13 (2013) 3225–3233

    2013

  38. [45]

    X. Ma, Y. Jin, Q. Dong, A generalized dynamic fuzzy neural network based on singular spectrum analysis optimized by brain storm optimiza- tion for short-term wind speed forecasting, Applied Soft Computing 54 (2017) 296–312

    2017

  39. [46]

    J. Jung, R. P. Broadwater, Current status and future advances for wind speed and power forecasting, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 31 (2014) 762–777

    2014

  40. [47]

    Esmaeili Aliabadi, N

    D. Esmaeili Aliabadi, N. Wulff, R. Lehneis, M. Sadr, F. Reutter, M. Jor- dan, P. Lehmann, D. Thr¨ an, Climate change may impair the transition to a fully renewable energy system, Available at SSRN 4960744 (????)

  41. [48]

    Lehneis, D

    R. Lehneis, D. Manske, B. Schinkel, D. Thr¨ an, Power generation from variable renewable energies (VRE), Helmholtz Climate Initiative (2022) 213–215

    2022

  42. [49]

    Forootani, A

    A. Forootani, A. Yazdizadeh, A. Aliabadi, Fault detection of gas unit of gilan combined cycle power plant using neural network, in: The 3rd Conference on Thermal Power Plants, IEEE, 2011, pp. 1–5

    2011

  43. [50]

    Huang, C

    R. Huang, C. Wei, B. Wang, J. Yang, X. Xu, S. Wu, S. Huang, Well performance prediction based on long short-term memory (lstm) neu- ral network, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 208 (2022) 109686

    2022

  44. [51]

    Vaswani, N

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, L. Kaiser, I. Polosukhin, Attention is all you need, Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017). 40

    2017

  45. [52]

    Forootani, D

    A. Forootani, D. E. Aliabadi, D. Thraen, Bio-eng-lmm ai assist chat- bot: A comprehensive tool for research and education, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.07110 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Weiser, S

    A. Weiser, S. E. Zarantonello, A note on piecewise linear and multilinear table interpolation in many dimensions, Mathematics of Computation 50 (1988) 189–196

    1988

  47. [54]

    M. R. Grose, S. Narsey, R. Trancoso, C. Mackallah, F. Delage, A. Dowdy, G. Di Virgilio, I. Watterson, P. Dobrohotoff, H. A. Rashid, et al., A cmip6-based multi-model downscaling ensemble to underpin climate change services in australia, Climate Services 30 (2023) 100368

    2023

  48. [55]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haberland, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Peterson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright, et al., Scipy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in python, Nature methods 17 (2020) 261–272

    2020

  49. [56]

    Sitzmann, J

    V. Sitzmann, J. Martel, A. Bergman, D. Lindell, G. Wetzstein, Implicit neural representations with periodic activation functions, Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020) 7462–7473

    2020

  50. [57]

    Forootani, P

    A. Forootani, P. Benner, GN-SINDy: Greedy sampling neural network in sparse identification of nonlinear partial differential equations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.08613 (2024)

    2024

  51. [58]

    Forootani, P

    A. Forootani, P. Goyal, P. Benner, A robust sindy approach by combining neural networks and an integral form, arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.07193 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Forootani, H

    A. Forootani, H. Kapadia, S. Chellappa, P. Goyal, P. Benner, Gs-pinn: Greedy sampling for parameter estimation in partial differential equa- tions, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.08537 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.