Energy 221 (2021) 119759

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

A robust deep learning framework for short-term wind power forecast

of a full-scale wind farm using atmospheric variables
Rajitha Meka, Adel Alaeddini*, Kiran Bhaganagar
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Texas, San Antonio, TX, 78249, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Short-term (less than 1 h) forecast of the power generated by wind turbines in a wind farm is extremely
Received 24 May 2020 challenging due to the lack of reliable data from meteorological towers and numerical weather model
Received in revised form outputs at these timescales. A robust deep learning model is developed for short-term forecasts of wind
11 November 2020
turbine generated power in a wind farm using the state-of-the-art temporal convolutional networks
Accepted 30 December 2020
(TCN) to simultaneously capture the temporal dynamics of the wind turbine power and relationship
Available online 8 January 2021
among the local meteorological variables. An orthogonal array tuning method based on the Taguchi
design of experiments is utilized to optimize the hyperparameters of the proposed TCN model. The
Keywords:
Temporal convolutional network (TCN)
proposed TCN model is validated using twelve months of data from a 130 MW utility-scale wind farm
Neural networks with 86 wind turbines in comparison with some of the existing methods in the literature. The power
Orthogonal array tuning method (OATM) curves obtained from the proposed TCN model show consistent improvements over existing methods at
Short-term prediction all wind speeds.
Wind farm power prediction © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Wind turbine

1. Introduction include physical methods, statistical methods, and hybrid methods

Wind energy is one of the major renewable energy sources that
has been rapidly growing in recent years. It is known for its envi-
ronmental friendliness, fossil fuel saving and pollutants reduction
[1]. However, while there is a significant increase in the installed
wind capacity each year, it comes with its own set of challenges.
Unlike conventional power plants, wind energy is highly depen-
dent on meteorological conditions which makes the power output
not easily predictable [2]. As the integration of regenerative en-
ergies such as wind energy into the current electric supply system
increases, predictive algorithms that provide reliable forecasts are
required to reduce the technical and financial risks of all partici-
pants in the market [3].
Predictive algorithms for forecasting wind turbine power can be
divided into four categories based on the prediction horizon, which
include very short-term (few seconds to 30 min ahead), short-term
(30 mine48/72 h ahead), medium-term (48/72 h to 1 week ahead)
and long-term (1 weeke1þ years ahead) [4]. Wind power fore-
casting methods can be further classified based on the type and
availability of data, and the purpose of the forecasting, which
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: adel.alaeddini@utsa.edu (A. Alaeddini).
that are the combination of both [5]. The meso scale features of the
weather is obtained from numerical weather prediction models
(NWP). As the weather predictions are only updated a few times
per day, the physical methods provide satisfactory forecasts for
longer time horizons [6]. Mathematical models based on statistical
methods use historical data to make predictions and are known to
work well with short-term power [7]. The conventional statistical
models are divided into autoregressive (AR), moving average (MA),
autoregressive moving average (ARMA), autoregressive integrated
moving average (ARIMA) models [8]. The hybrid methods combine
the physical and statistical methods using weather forecasts data
and time series analysis to provide robust wind power predictions
[9].
Recently, artificial intelligence techniques based on multi-layer
perceptrons (MLP), radial basis function (RBF), recurrent neural
networks (RNN) and fuzzy logic systems have gained popularity
and proven successful in improving the accuracy of wind power
forecasts [10]. Methaprayoon et al. [11] discuss the development of
an ANN based wind power forecasting method that uses history of
wind speed and wind power as inputs to predict the future wind
power. Since then, there have been quite a few models developed
based on MLP [12,13], radial basis function (RBF) neural networks
[5,14,15], support vector machines [16,17], ensemble methods
[18,19] to improve the wind power forecast. There are also wind

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.119759
0360-5442/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Meka, A. Alaeddini and K. Bhaganagar
power forecasting models based on numerical weather prediction
model data using fuzzy rules [20]. Hong and Rioflorido [21] propose
an RBF neural network with a double Gaussian activation function
that utilizes the features extracted by a convolutional neural
network from the data. Chen et al. [22] propose an architecture that
includes stacked encoders to jointly extract salient patterns and
heterogeneous features of the data. Recurrent neural networks
(RNN) are another type of neural networks known to work well
with time series data [23]. Barbounis et al. [24] and Senjyu et al.
[25] discuss using the RNNs for long-term wind speed and power
forecasting. Felder et al. [26] discuss using RNNs to predict short-
term wind power using the last 24 h of averaged power measure-
ments and NWP data as input to the model. However, RNN models
has the problem of vanishing gradients, in which the contribution
of previous states vanishes after a few timesteps [27].
LSTM is a special type of RNN model that is known to solve the
vanishing gradient problem of RNNs for a small extra computa-
tional costs [28,29]. Since its inception in 1997 [30], a wide variety
of LSTM architectures have been used for different problems
[31e35]. Xiaoyun et al. [36] discuss the usage of LSTM model based
on NWP data for short-term wind power prediction. Wu et al. [37]
propose a CNN þ LSTM model that uses convolutional layers to
extract the features that are passed through LSTM layers to capture
the time dynamics. Lo
pez et al. [38] propose using the LSTM blocks
as hidden layer units of echo state network to predict the accurate
wind power using the history of wind power and NWP data. Shi
et al. [39] also find LSTM model to perform better than traditional
neural networks and proposes recursive and direct variational
model decomposition long short-term memory networks for
hourly day ahead wind power prediction. Cali and Sharma [40] also
use the historical power and NWP data to predict the wind power
using LSTM model along with sensitive analysis to identify the most
informative input parameters from NWP data. Later, Yu et al. [41]
propose an LSTM enhanced forget-gate network model in which
two peep holes are added to standard LSTM forget and output gates
to improve the performance of the model. LSTM is still one of the
extensively used deep learning models and can be found in many
recent papers [42e48].
While LSTM provides promising results, Greff et al. [49]
benchmark eight different variants of LSTM on different complex
prediction tasks, concluding none of the variants can improve the
predictions significantly compared to the standard LSTM. Recently,
temporal convolutional networks (TCN) have outperformed several
recurrent architectures like LSTM and provide significant perfor-
mance improvement for sequence modeling tasks like action seg-
mentation [50,51], speech analysis [52], image classification [53],
and medical time series prediction [54e58]. Recent works [59]
demonstrate the use of TCN’s hierarchical temporal convolutional
filters help capturing the long range patterns by overcoming the
previous short comings of recurrent network architectures. Bai
et al. [59] compare TCN with RNN, gated recurrent units and LSTM
using several benchmarked problems to show that TCN out-
performs the RNN architectures. They also discuss the advantages
and disadvantages of the TCN model. Apart from benefits like
lowest memory requirement for training and gradient stability, one
of the main advantages of TCN model is the ability of not having to
backpropagate in the temporal direction that resulting in easily
trainable models of high capacity, despite moderate complexity in
terms of parameters. Some of the distinguishing characteristics of
TCN include the capability of looking far enough into the past using
a combination of deep networks that are augmented with residual
layers to provide predictions, using sequence of any length to map
the output of same sequence and using causal convolutions that
does not allow information leak from future to past [59].
2
Energy 221 (2021) 119759
This paper proposes a temporal convolutional network (TCN) to
predict the total wind turbine power in a 130 MW utility-scale wind
farm for short-term using atmospheric variables, which to the best
of our knowledge has not been attempted before. The proposed
model provides a multi-step forecast of the wind power for up to
50 min ahead. It utilizes an orthogonal array tuning method
(OATM) to optimize the hyperparameters of the proposed model
including the size of the input history. As the wind energy is highly
dependent on meteorological conditions, the atmospheric data
collected through two meteorological (MET) towers located near
the wind farm is used. The contributions of the proposed study
include.
 Proposing a deep learning model based on state-of-the-art TCN
to predict the total power produced in a full scale wind farm
using atmospheric variables
 Providing multi-step ahead prediction of wind power for 0, 10,
20, 30, 40 and 50 min ahead
 Using an orthogonal array tuning method (OATM) to optimize
the hyperparameters of the deep learning models, including the
size of input history, to improve the prediction performance
 Evaluating the predictive performance of the proposed multi-
step ahead TCN model against long short-term memory
(LSTM), convolutional long short-term memory (CNN þ LSTM)
and multi linear regression (MLR) models
Due to the propriety nature of the results only the scaled total
power is reported in this study. The rest of the paper is organized as
follows: the data collection, preprocessing, model construction of
all the prediction models, performance metrics and hyper-
parameters optimization are provided in Section 2. The predictive
performance of the TCN model along with other models are dis-
cussed in Section 3. Finally, the conclusions are discussed in Section
4.
2. Materials and methods
Let X2RTxp , X ¼ ðxt¼1 ; xt¼2 ; ::; xt¼T Þ be the time series of input
variable dynamics for the time periods t ¼ 1; …; T, where
xi¼ðxi1 ;xi2 ;::;xi15 Þ represents the set of values for the individual input
variables p ¼ 1; …; 15 at time point i in the dataset. The response
(output) variable is denoted as y ¼ f ðXÞ. All the models in this study
use the inputs X at time t  ih ;t  ih þ 1;…; t, where ih is the size of
input history, to predict the y at t; t þ 1; t þ 2; t þ 3; t þ 4; t þ 5
simultaneously.
2.1. Wind farm dataset
The proposed study uses the dataset from a wind farm that
covers 120 km2 of area. The wind farm has 86 wind turbines with a
scale of around 1  1:5 MW. The wind turbines have a 3:5 m=s cut-
in wind speed, a 14 m=s rated wind speed, and a 25 m=s cut-out
wind speed. The data is collected at 10 min intervals from nearby
meteorological (MET) towers. The dataset consists of 12 months of
data from the year 2013 collected from MET towers at two heights
(at hub height and 1:5 m above ground) and wind power from all 86
wind turbines. In addition to the 12 original variables collected,
three additional variables are calculated. Table 1 presents all 15
input variables, along with their notations, and descriptive statis-
tics. The total power from all the 86 wind turbines is the output in
this study.
Fig. 1 shows the autocorrelation of the total power at 100
timesteps. Autocorrelation at lag k is calculated using Equation (1)
where T is the number of observations in the time series y1 ; y2 ; …;
R. Meka, A. Alaeddini and K. Bhaganagar Energy 221 (2021) 119759

Table 1
Descriptive statistics and related notations of input variables.

Input - MET tower variables Notation Mean Std Min Max

Air temperature at 1:5m (K) T1:5m 290.5 10.5 246.8 313.4

Solar radiance SR 211.3 302.5 0.0 1145.0
Surface temperature (K) Ts 293.6 13.6 265.1 334.7
Relative humidity (%) RH 54.7 22.0 5.0 96.0
Soil moisture SM 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2
Soil temperature (K) TSo 294.7 10.7 273.3 319.4
Wetness W 1082.6 259.7 29.0 1321.5
m U1:5m 2.0 1.5 0.0 10.7
Wind speed at 1:5m ( )
s
Pressure (Pa) P 92609.9 670.4 80439.0 94546.0
Air temperature at hub height (K) T 290.2 10.2 261.9 312.7
Wind direction (+) WD 156.1 78.2 0.0 358.7
m U 7.5 3.3 0.0 23.6
Wind speed at hub height ( )
s
Input - Calculated variables Notation Mean Std Min Max

Air density (kg= m3 ) Rho 0.9 0.1 0.7 1.1

Heat flux (W= m2 ) HFX 45.7 90.7 114.4 1192.7
Change in surface temperature (K) vTs 0.0 0.6 6.0 6.9
vt

Fig. 1. The autocorrelation of total power for the 100 timesteps in the time series, where each timestep involves a 10 min interval.

yT and y is the average of the observations [60]. As the coefficient of
correlation plateaus over the time, it indicates that the data far
away from the most current timestep (lag 0) might not be helpful in
prediction of the model.
related to the ones that are highly correlated with total power. For
example, heat flux has very small (negative) correlation with total
power, but it has significant correlation of 0.53 with wind speed
collected at 1:5 m, which has second highest positive correlation
with the total power. In this paper, all of the 12 MET variables as

1
Pnjkj   well as the 3 calculated variables are used as the inputs to the
T t¼1 ytþjkj  y ðyt  yÞ model, because deep learning models are known to have the ability
Ak ¼ P (1) to extract complex nonlinear features from the inputs, which go
1 T ðy  yÞ2
T t¼1 t
beyond Pearson correlation.
The matrix of the Pearson’s correlation coefficient (See Equation PT
(2)) between all the variables is shown in Fig. 2. Of all the input t¼1 ðxt  xÞðyt  yÞ
C ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
PT (2)
variables, the wind speed at hub height has the highest positive 2 PT 2
correlation with total power following by wind speed collected at t¼1 ðxt  xÞ t¼1 ðyt  yÞ

1:5 m with the correlation coefficients of 0.88 and 0.39 respectively.

Pressure has the highest negative correlation with the total power
followed by solar radiance with the correlation coefficients
of 0.29 and 0.15 respectively. 2.2. Data cleaning
As shown in the correlation matrix, some of the input variables
might not be directly correlated with the total power, but they are This study uses instantaneous rapid refresh (RAP) data from
3
R. Meka, A. Alaeddini and K. Bhaganagar
Fig. 2. The color coded correlation matrix of the 15 inputs and 1 ouput variables based on Pearson correlation coefficient. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
NWP to understand the bounds of the MET tower variables. RAP
data is not used as inputs as it is available in hourly intervals. The
data is pre-processed to replace all missing observations with valid
previous timestep observations. Before cleaning the outliers, the
data distribution of all input and output variables over time are
analyzed. The analysis shows the total power from all wind tur-
bines and the two MET tower variables, air temperature at 1:5 m
and pressure, have outliers. Using the air temperature and pressure
bounds of RAP data, the values less than 250 K and 80000 Pa for air
temperature at 1:5 m and pressure are considered as outliers
respectively. All the outliers of air temperature at 1:5 m and pres-
sure are replaced with valid previous timestep observations. For
cleaning the total power data, power from individual wind turbines
are used. As the negative power values are physically impossible,
the values less than 0 are considered as outliers. While there are a
few very high magnitude power values, after referring to the mean
and maximum power values of each wind turbine, the power
values greater than 1:8 MW are considered as outliers. The data
distributions of air temperature at 1:5 m, pressure and scaled total
power before and after outliers are shown in Fig. 3.
2.3. Data scaling
The dataset is scaled to make the variables within the pre-
defined range of ½0; 1. The MinMaxScaler from scikit-learn (version
0.21.1.) [61] library is used to scale each variable using the Equation
(3).
smax  smin smax  smin
xscaled ¼ x þ smin  x (3)
xmax  xmin xmax  xmin min
where, smin ¼ 0, smax ¼ 1, xmin and xmax are the minimum and
maximum values of the variable of interest in the training set with x
being the actual value of the variable.
2.4. Proposed model: Temporal convolutional networks (TCN)
Temporal convolutional networks (TCN) has been successfully
applied to several applications in recent years with little tweaks in
the architecture [50,51,59,62]. The TCN model considered in the
study is based on the version discussed by Bai et al. [59]. The TCN
4
Energy 221 (2021) 119759
library is provided by Philippe Re
my which is based on the Keras
library. The original locuslab code of TCN can be found in Ref. [63].
The TCN architecture can be defined as TCN ¼ 1D FCN þ causal
convolutions. 1D FCN is a one dimensional fully convolutional
network [64] that helps in accomplishing one of the TCN principles
which is maintaining the network output the same as the length of
input. Causal convolutions are used to accomplish the other prin-
ciple of no leakage from the past to future. The output at time t is
convolved only through the elements at time t and earlier in the
previous layer. To take advantage of (possibly) long history, dilated
convolutions are used instead of simple causal convolutions that
might need a very deep network resulting in complicated network
structure and heavy computation. The dilation factor d is the fixed
step between every two adjacent filter taps. The dilated convolu-
tions help increasing the size of the receptive field while the
tunable parameters grow linearly [65]. For a 1D sequence input x2
R and a filter f : f0;::;ks  1g/R, the dilated convolution operation
F at time t is defined as:
kX
s 1
FðtÞ ¼ ðx*d f ÞðtÞ ¼ f ðiÞ : xtd:i (4)
i¼0
where ks is the filter size, i is the level of the network, and t  d:i in
the indicator of the direction of the past. The receptive field of the
TCN can be increased using a larger filter size ks and dilation factor
d. The history size of one such layer will be of the length ðks  1Þd.
The larger dilation helps the output at top level to represent wide
range of inputs thus increasing the receptive field. The dilation
factor d ¼ 1 is a dilation convolution equal to regular convolution.
The d value is generally increased exponentially with the depth of
the network.
Residual block is the another component of TCN which is
defined as in Equation (5), where o is the output of the layer, and
FðxÞ represents the residual mapping to be learned. The weight
normalization is applied to the convolutional filters inside the re-
sidual block. The activation function that is applied can be the
rectified linear unit (ReLu). After the weight layer, a dropout layer
can be added to avoid the problem of over fitting [66]. Dropout is a
regularization technique used to drop some random outputs of the
network layer [67]. The number of neurons to drop is given by the
R. Meka, A. Alaeddini and K. Bhaganagar
Fig. 3. Air temperature at 1:5 m, pressure and scaled total power data distribution over time - with and without outliers.
dropout rate ranging from 0 to 1 which is the probability at which
the outputs of the layer are dropped. The TCN receptive field also
depends on the number of stacks of the residual block. For example,
the size of the receptive field with kernel size of ks ¼ 3 and dilation
factor d ¼ 1; 2; 4 and number of stacks of residual blocks ns ¼ 1,
will be 3*4*1 ¼ 12. Following the illustration in Ref. [59], the TCN
architecture is reproduced and shown in Fig. 4.
o ¼ Activationðx þ FðxÞÞ
2.5. Comparing method I: LSTM
LSTM networks use the self loops that produce paths through
which gradient information can flow for long durations [68]. In this
paper, Keras [69] library with Tensorflow [70] backend is used for
implementing the LSTM model. A typical LSTM cell consists of three
gates to protect and control the cell state. The forget gate uses the
output from previous state and input xt to decide on which infor-
mation to forget from previous state. It uses sigmoid activation
function to output values between 0 and 1 with 0 representing to
completely forget the information and 1 to completely keep the
information. Next, an input gate helps in deciding which new in-
formation needs to be stored in the cell state. Initially, it uses a
sigmoid layer to decide on the values to update and uses a tanh
layer to create a new candidate values. Next, the old cell state is
updated using the information from the forget gate, input gate, and
the new candidate values. Finally, the output gate decides the
output based on the cell state. It runs through a sigmoid layer to
decide on the parts of the cell state to output and then runs through
tanh layer that uses the output from sigmoid layer to provide the
final output.
Energy 221 (2021) 119759
2.6. Comparing method II: CNN þ LSTM
Convolutional neural networks (CNN) are also a multi-layer
supervised networks which can learn the features automatically
from the data and are intensively used in the field of image and
pattern recognition [37,71,72]. The CNN architecture consists of
several convolutional and pooling layers stacked to extract higher
level of features that are finally passed through a fully connected
(5) layer that uses all the information and provides the final pre-
dictions. The convolutional layer uses several filters that convolve
through the data producing the activation maps of the filters. The
pooling layers help in speeding up the calculation by reducing the
number of parameters. In this study, CNN þ LSTM model is used,
where the data is passed through one convolution and pooling
layers each to extract the features and then passed through LSTM
layers and final dense layer to get the predictions. For imple-
menting the CNN þ LSTM model, Keras library with Tensorflow
backend is used as well.
2.7. Comparing method III: MLR
Multi linear regression (MLR) model assumes linear relationship
between input data (MET data þ calculated variables) and total
power. It also assumes all observations are normal and indepen-
dently distributed [73]. MLR model is formulated as
yt ¼ b0 þ b1 xt1 þ … þ bp xtp þ ε where yt is output variable at
timestep t, xt1 ; …; xtp are p input variables at timestep t, b0 ; …bp are
p þ 1 parameters and ε is the random error of the model. Multi-
OutputRegressor and LinearRegression functions provided by
scikit-learn [61] to build the MLR model are used. If the model uses
the input history, all the inputs in the past are added as features. For
example, the model that uses input history of 5 timesteps will have
5
R. Meka, A. Alaeddini and K. Bhaganagar Energy 221 (2021) 119759

Fig. 4. Architectural elements of TCN.

5p number of features with p number of features at timesteps t  4, has few disadvantages as it doesn’t take the previous evaluation
t  3, t  2, t  1, and t. outcomes into consideration [76]. Later, Bayesian optimization
techniques [77] have been successfully used to optimize the
2.8. Performance metrics hyperparameters [78]. There is also a research area emerging on
automatic selection of models based on the data [79]. One of the
Normalized root mean square error (NRMSE) and normalized major limitations of Bayesian optimization is its dependence on the
mean absolute error (NMAE) are selected as the performance quality of the learned model [80]. Recently, zhang et al. [81] pro-
metrics to evaluate the performance of all the models in this study. pose an Orthogonal Array Tuning Method (OATM), a highly frac-
The calculation of RMSE and MAE performance metrics are shown tional orthogonal design, that is based on Taguchi [82] approach
in Equations (6) and (7) with yTru being the actual total power which trades-off between the tuning time and competitive per-
formance. In this study, the OATM approach is used to optimize the
produced, yEst being estimated total power and T being the total
hyperparameters of the TCN, LSTM, and CNN þ LSTM models.
number of samples in the test set.
In the OATM approach, the hyperparameters are considered as
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
uP  2 factors and the different values of the hyperparameters are
u T
t i¼1 yTru i
 yEst i
considered as levels. The major steps of OATM which are described
RMSE ¼ (6) in Ref. [81] are as follows:
T

PT  Tru   Step 1: Determine the number of factors to be optimized and the

y  yEst 
i¼1 i i number of levels for each factor, and build the factor-level (F-L)
MAE ¼ (7)
T table.
Then, the RMSE and MAE are normalized and reported as  Step 2: Construct the orthogonal array tuning table with k fac-
normalized root mean square error (NRMSE ¼ RMSE) and normal- tors, h levels and M rows that follows the basic composition
O principles.
ized mean absolute error (NMAE ¼ MAE) where O is the average of
O  Step 3: Run M models using the hyperparameters corresponding
all actual total power observations in the test set. to each row.
 Step 4: Conduct range analysis to analyze the experiment results
2.9. Orthogonal array Tuning method (OATM) and identify the optimal levels of the hyperparameters.
 Step 5: Run the model using the hyperparameters suggested by
This section describes the proposed methodology for optimizing the range analysis.
the (predictive) performance of the TCN, LSTM and CNN þ LSTM
models. The design parameters of the deep learning models, that As an additional step in this study, after running the model with
define the network architecture, are known as hyperparameters. the suggested optimal set of hyperparameters by the OATM
One of the most common approach for optimizing the hyper- approach, the optimal set of hyperparameters are selected as the
parameters is through grid search. However, grid search suffers the set providing best performance out of all the M þ 1 (M combina-
curse of dimensionality when the number of hyperparameters are tions from orthogonal array table and one combination suggested
very large [74]. Random search is another approach which by OATM approach) runs tested.
randomly searches and optimizes the hyperparameters [75]. It also
6
R. Meka, A. Alaeddini and K. Bhaganagar Energy 221 (2021) 119759

Table 2 Table 3
Factor - level table for the TCN, LSTM and CNN þ LSTM models. Range analysis of the TCN model.

Model Levels Factors Row No. nf ks ns ih NRMSE

nf ks ns ih 1 5 5 2 5 0.379
2 5 8 3 10 0.477
TCN Level 1 5 5 2 5
3 5 10 5 15 0.545
Level 2 10 8 3 10
4 10 5 3 15 0.416
Level 3 15 10 5 15
5 10 8 5 5 0.384
lr nl nn ih 6 10 10 2 10 0.395
7 15 5 5 10 0.426
LSTM Level 1 0.001 1 32 5
8 15 8 2 15 0.439
Level 2 0.005 2 64 10 9 15 10 3 5 0.406
Level 3 0.01 3 128 15
Rlevel1 1.401 1.221 1.212 1.169
nf nl nn ih Rlevel2 1.194 1.300 1.299 1.298
CNN þ LSTM Level 1 64 1 32 5 Rlevel3 1.271 1.346 1.355 1.399
Level 2 128 2 64 10 Elevel1 0.467 0.407 0.404 0.390
Level 3 256 3 128 15 Elevel2 0.398 0.433 0.433 0.433
Elevel3 0.424 0.449 0.452 0.466

Lowest NRMSE 0.398 0.407 0.404 0.390

2.10. Factor-level Table of hyperparameters Highest NRMSE 0.467 0.449 0.452 0.466
Range 0.069 0.042 0.048 0.077
Importance i h > nf > ns > k s
Initially, a few trials are run to understand the hyperparameter
ranges to be tested. Based on the results of the initial runs and Best Level Level 2 Level 1 Level 1 Level 1
literature [81,83], four factors are picked with three levels for each Suggested Optimal value 10 5 2 5 0.375

of the TCN, LSTM and CNN þ LSTM models. The four factors selected
for TCN are number of filters (nf ), kernel size (ks ), number of stacks
(ns ) and amount of input history (ih ). The four factors selected for
CNN þ LSTM are number of filters (nf ), number of layers (nl ),
number of neurons (nn ) and amount of input history (ih ). The four
factors selected for LSTM are learning rate of ADAM optimization
(lr ), number of layers (nl ), number of neurons (nn ) and amount of
input history (ih ). The factor-level (F-L) table of the TCN, LSTM and
CNN þ LSTM is shown in Table 2.
3. Results and discussion
This section investigates the performance of the proposed TCN
model along with those of LSTM, CNN þ LSTM, and MLR models
based on the wind-farm dataset described in Section 2. The data is
split into 80 : 20 for training and testing the models. All the models
use 15 input variables to predict the total power up to 6 timesteps
which is represented as t, t þ 1, t þ 2, t þ 3, t þ 4 and tþ 5 timesteps.
3.1. Result of hyperparameter optimization
Here, the optimization methodology discussed in Section 2.9 is
applied to optimize the prediction performance of LSTM,
CNN þ LSTM and TCN models in terms of NRMSE. All the experi-
ments are run for 100 epochs with a batch size of 1000 and no
dropout. The default learning rate values are used for CNN þ LSTM
and TCN models. For the TCN runs, the dilation factor of d ¼ 5 is
used which generates the list of dilation f1; 2; 4; 8; 16g. According
to the Section 2.10, the F-L table is built with k ¼ 4 factors and h ¼ 3
levels and shown in Table 2 (Step 1). Taguchi method [82] is used to
build the orthogonal array tuning table. JMP software [84] is used to
create the OATM table with L9 configuration to construct the table
with M ¼ 9 rows (Step 2). Each model is run with 9 different
combinations of hyperparameters provided in the OATM table (Step
3). To conduct the range analysis, all the NRMSE results are recor-
ded as shown in Table 3, where Rleveli denotes the sum of error
under level i, and Eleveli is the average error level calculated by
Eleveli ¼ Rleveli
h
(Step 4). Then, the model is run using hyperparameters
approach provides the lowest NRMSE of all the runs. The range
analysis by the OATM approach also indicates the sensitivity of the
design factors to the performance of the models. For the TCN
model, the input history size (ih ) in terms of NRMSE is the most
sensitive design factor followed by the number of filters (nf ), the
number of residual stacks (ns ) and the kernel size (ks ). The optimal
set of hyperparameters for the comparing models are shown in
Table 4.
3.2. Analysis of the predictive performance
This section investigates the predictive performance of the TCN
model in comparison to LSTM, CNN þ LSTM, and MLR models using
optimized hyperparameters from Section 3.1. MLR model with 5, 10
and 15 timesteps of input history is tested and the model with
lowest NRMSE is selected for the analysis, which is the model using
5 timesteps of input history. Table 5 shows the NRMSE and NMAE
values of the comparing methods at t, t þ 1, t þ 2, t þ 3, t þ 4 and t þ
5 timesteps ahead along with the overall NRMSE and NMAE, which
concatenates the observations of all timesteps. All of the models in
the study predict 6 timesteps ahead simultaneously. The cells in the
table are color coded; signifying that the darker values represent
higher predictive accuracy. In terms of both NRMSE and NMAE, the
TCN model generally performs better than other methods. Also, the
overall NRMSE of the TCN model is 12:6%, 6:4% and 6:4% less than
the MLR, LSTM and CNN þ LSTM models respectively. The overall
NMAE of the TCN model is 20:3%, 8:6% and 2:0% less than the MLR,
LSTM and CNN þ LSTM models respectively.
At prediction timestep t þ 3, although the NMAE of TCN and
CNN þ LSTM look the same with a value of 0.277, without rounding
off to the third decimal place the NMAE value of CNN þ LSTM is
Table 4
Optimal hyperparameters of the TCN, LSTM and CNN þ LSTM.
Model Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

suggested by the range analysis of the OATM approach (Step 5). TCN nf ¼ 10 ks ¼ 5 ns ¼ 2 ih ¼ 5
The range analysis of the TCN model is shown in Table 3. For the LSTM lr ¼ 0.001 nl ¼ 1 nn ¼ 32 ih ¼ 5
CNN þ LSTM nf ¼ 128 nl ¼ 3 nn ¼ 32 ih ¼ 10
TCN model, the suggested optimal set of hyperparameters by OATM
7
R. Meka, A. Alaeddini and K. Bhaganagar
Table 5
NRMSE and NMAE of the TCN, LSTM, CNN þ LSTM and MLR.
0:2% less than TCN model. Considering the NRMSE at the same
prediction timestep t þ 3, the TCN model value is 4:4% less than
CNN þ LSTM model. Although both RMSE and MAE express average
model prediction error, RMSE has the advantage of penalizing the
large errors more and also does not use the absolute value in the
calculations which is undesirable in many mathematical calcula-
tions [85]. As the RMSE metric is the most common metric used for
revealing the performance ability of the prediction models, the TCN
model is considered better performing model overall even at pre-
diction step t þ 3. These results prove how the TCN’s hierarchical
temporal convolution filters help capturing the long range patterns
Fig. 5. Scaled actual vs predicted total powers at time t for 1000 timesteps in the beginning of November month using TCN, LSTM, CNN þ LSTM and MLR models.
8
Energy 221 (2021) 119759
by overcoming the previous short comings of recurrent network
architectures.
To further extend the analysis, the scaled actual vs predicted
powers of the comparing methods are visualized over different
period of times. For this purpose, the test dataset, which covers the
time interval of mid October to the end of December, is divided into
four time periods of 1000 timesteps, which are 10 min apart, to
represent the beginning of November, end of November, beginning
of December, and end of December, respectively. These four time
periods are then used to visualize the errors of the comparing
methods for current prediction timestep t. Figs. 5e8 show the
scaled actual and predicted total powers at time t for all the four
periods. The predicted maximum total powers of the TCN model
are normalized using the average of all predictions in test set and
reported as 1.811, 2.585, 2.664 and 2.469 for the four selected pe-
riods, respectively. The corresponding actual total powers
normalized using the average of all actual observations in test set
are 2.906, 2.603, 2.756 and 2.739, respectively. Except for the period
that covers beginning of the November month, the predicted
maximum total powers of TCN are within 90% confidence interval
of actual total powers. The period at which the predicted total
power is not within 90% confidence interval is the highest over
predicted observation of overall test data. Similarly, by comparing
the predicted maximum total powers of each MLR, LSTM and
CNN þ LSTM models with corresponding actual total powers, MLR
and CNN þ LSTM have only one time period out of four time periods
for which the prediction is within 90% confidence interval while the
LSTM model does not have any. The predictions of valleys of all four
period time series is challenging for all the models. The normalized
predicted minimum total powers of the TCN model are
0.007, 0.049, 0.053 and 0.024. The corresponding normalized
R. Meka, A. Alaeddini and K. Bhaganagar Energy 221 (2021) 119759

Fig. 6. Scaled actual vs predicted total powers at time t for 1000 timesteps in the end of November month using TCN, LSTM, CNN þ LSTM and MLR models.

Fig. 7. Scaled actual vs predicted total powers at time t for 1000 timesteps in the beginning of December month using TCN, LSTM, CNN þ LSTM and MLR models.

9
R. Meka, A. Alaeddini and K. Bhaganagar
Fig. 8. Scaled actual vs predicted total powers at time t for 1000 timesteps in the end of December month using MLR, LSTM, CNN þ LSTM and TCN models.
actual total powers are 0.020, 0.083, 0.054 and 0.030, respectively.
Similarly, by comparing the predicted minimum total powers of
each MLR, LSTM and CNN þ LSTM models with corresponding
actual total powers, none of the models including the TCN model
have the predictions of the minimum total powers within 90%
confidence interval except at one period for TCN model. However,
considering the timesteps at which the TCN model predicted the
minimum total powers and comparing the predictions of those
timesteps to MLR, LSTM and CNN þ LSTM models, the absolute
error of the TCN model is significantly less than comparing
methods for all periods except for the period that covers the ending
of December month.
Apart from the TCN model, considering the predictive maximum
and minimum total powers predicted by CNN þ LSTM model, the
CNN þ LSTM model is significantly performing better than LSTM
and MLR models with having one period out of four periods within
90% confidence interval and one period with absolute error 51:6%
and 52:7% less than the absolute errors of MLR and LSTM models
respectively.
Finally, the power curve representing the correlation between
the scaled actual total power and the wind speed, and the scaled
predicted total power from the TCN model at current time t and the
wind speed are shown in Fig. 9 a and 9 b respectively. As shown in
Fig. 9 a and 9 b, there exists a strong correlation between the total
power with the wind speed, as expected. The Pearson’s correlation
coefficient of the actual total power with wind speed in the test
data is 0.86, while the correlation coefficient of predicted total
power with wind speed is 0.91. Fig. 9 c shows the absolute error
plotted versus the wind speed. It should be noted that the cut-in
speed is 3.5 m/s and the cut-off speed is 25 m/s. At low wind-
speeds and at high wind-speeds the errors are low. However, the
10
Energy 221 (2021) 119759
errors are high in the range of wind speeds from 8 to 12 m/s. The
absolute error distribution has pronounced peak at the center
(around 10 m/s) with broad distribution of errors across the other
wind speeds. Fig. 9 d shows the squared error distribution.
3.3. Discussion
The TCN model provides the best performance over all of the
comparing methods across almost all timesteps in terms of all
performance metrics. With respect to the NRMSE metric, the
highest performance gaps of the proposed TCN with each of the
comparing methods are: 21:0% for MLR model occurring at t (cur-
rent time), 9:9% for the LSTM model at t þ 1 (10 min ahead), and
8:0% for the CNN þ LSTM model at t þ 2 (20 min ahead). Similarly,
using NMAE, the highest performance gap between the proposed
TCN and the comparing methods are: 35:5% for MLR which occurs
at t, 13:1% for LSTM at t þ 1 , and 1:9% for CNN þ LSTM at t þ 2,
respectively. Meanwhile, as expected, the performance gap be-
tween the proposed TCN and other comparing methods generally
decreases as the prediction timestep increases. This is mainly due
to the decrease in the prediction power of all methods for further
away timesteps.
Based on the OATM approach, an input history of 5 timesteps
(50 min) is found optimal for all of the comparing methods except
for CNN þ LSTM, which requires 10 timesteps (100 min). The need
for additional history in CNN þ LSTM is probably due to the con-
volutional layers used to extract the features. Also, after the TCN
model, the CNN þ LSTM model provides the best performance in
terms of NRMSE and NMAE compared to MLR and LSTM models.
Finally, while the focus of the paper is mainly on using atmo-
spheric variables for prediction of wind power, for readers
R. Meka, A. Alaeddini and K. Bhaganagar
Fig. 9. Correlation of scaled actual and predicted total powers of the TCN model at time t, absolute and squared error distributions of the total power at time t with respect to wind
speed at hub height.
reference, Table 6 shows the NRMSE and NMAE performances of
TCN, LSTM, CNN þ LSTM and MLR models that include the historic
wind power at time t as one of the input variables. These models
use the atmospheric variables and the total wind power at t, to
predict the total wind power at t þ 1, t þ 2, t þ 3, tþ 4 and tþ 5
simultaneously. As expected, including the historic wind power
Table 6
NRMSE and NMAE of the TCN, LSTM, CNN þ LSTM and MLR with total wind power as
input in addition to atmospheric inputs.
11
Energy 221 (2021) 119759
improves the accuracy of the forecasts for all models, and makes
the predictions of different methods close to each other. This is
because historic wind power is one of the most influential factors
for the prediction of future power (due to auto-correlation). Also,
while the proposed TCN method still provides the best overall
performance when including the historic wind power, for the very
short prediction intervals (t þ 1, t þ 2), the MLR method shows
better forecast. This is because: (1) The objective function of the
comparing models is designed to provide the lowest prediction
error across all future timesteps (and not only one/two intervals),
and (2) very short prediction intervals (t þ 1, t þ 2) involves only a
few minutes ahead predictions (10 min, 20 min), and therefore
historic wind power makes a very good predictor, as significant
changes in the wind power is unlikely in very short time. Mean-
while, as the prediction timestep gets far away to the input time-
step the prediction accuracy of MLR gets decreased.
4. Conclusions
In this study, a state-of-the-art temporal convolutional network
(TCN) is proposed to provide accurate multi-step forecast of the
total wind power generated by a 130 MW full-scale wind farm for
up to 50 min ahead using atmospheric variables. An orthogonal
array tuning method (OATM) for optimizing the hyperparameters
of the proposed TCN method, which includes the number of filters,
the kernel size, the number of residual stacks, and the amount of
input history, is utilized. As most of the literature considers using
power as one of the input variables which might not be easily
available, the models in this study use only meteorological and
derived (from MET data) inputs to predict the total power of a wind
R. Meka, A. Alaeddini and K. Bhaganagar
farm. We believe this study is the beginning of understanding the
usage of TCN models in improving the wind power prediction as
most of the current models are highly based on long short-term
memory (LSTM) models. Using a full-scale wind farm dataset,
including 12 months meteorological (MET) and wind turbine po-
wer data from 86 wind turbines, this study compares the predictive
performance of the TCN model with LSTM, convolutional neural
network (CNN)þLSTM, and multi linear regression (MLR) in terms
of normalized root mean square error (NRMSE) and normalized
mean absolute error (NMAE). The results show the proposed TCN
model provides the most competitive and robust performance of all
comparing methods across almost all timesteps and performance
metrics by a large margin. The results also show that, unlike other
methods, the maximum predicted total performance of the pro-
posed TCN model are often within 90% confidence interval of the
actual values.
The proposed TCN model offers an important contribution to the
short-term forecast of total wind power at utility-scale wind farm
by increasing the prediction accuracy. The study also demonstrates
the significance of meteorological variables in addition to the wind
speed and wind direction for prediction of wind power. While,
wind speed has the highest correlation with the total power, the
proposed study demonstrates non-trivial correlations with mete-
orological variables, such as surface temperature, relative humidity,
surface heat flux, and air density. Given the fact that short-term
predictions of power based on data collected from meteorological
towers and the numerical models are susceptible to significant
errors, by integrating recent history of all the meteorological vari-
ables, the proposed TCN model provides accurate short-term
prediction.
Credit suthor statement
Rajitha Meka: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data Prepara-
tion, Coding the Algorithms, Conducting the Numerical Studies,
Analyzing the Results, Writing e original draft. Adel Alaeddini:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Analyzing the Re-
sults, Writing- Reviewing and Editing. Kiran Bhaganagar: Concep-
tualization, Methodology, Supervision, Analyzing the Results,
Writing- Reviewing and Editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge funding support from NASA MIRO Grant
#80NSSC19M0194 and a partial funding support from AFOSR YIP
Grant #FA9550-16-1-0171.
Appendix
Air density, surface heat flux and changes in surface tempera-
ture are calculated using Equations (8)e(10), where Pw , Cp , raa are
vapor pressure, specific heat and aerodynamic resistance [86]
respectively.
12
Energy 221 (2021) 119759
Pd Pw
Air Density; r ¼ þ ; where; Pw
287:058*T
 461:495*T
  (8)
7:5T RH
¼ 6:1078 10Tþ237:3 ; Pd ¼ P  Pw
100
rcp ðTs  TÞ
Surface Heat Flux; H ¼ 1000 ; where;
raa
(9)
208
Cp ¼ 1:003; raa ¼
U1:5m
vTs
Changes in Surface Temparature ¼ (10)
vt
References
[1] Bokde N, Feijo
o A, Villanueva D, Kulat K. A review on hybrid empirical mode
decomposition models for wind speed and wind power prediction. Energies
2019;12(2):254.
[2] Lange M, Focken U. Physical approach to short-term wind power prediction.
Springer; 2006.
[3] Gensler A, Henze J, Sick B, Raabe N. Deep Learning for solar power fore-
castingdan approach using AutoEncoder and LSTM Neural Networks. In:
2016 IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics (SMC).
IEEE; 2016. p. 2858e65.
[4] Zhao X, Wang S, Li T. Review of evaluation criteria and main methods of wind
power forecasting. Energy Procedia 2011;12:761e9.
[5] Sideratos G, Hatziargyriou ND. An advanced statistical method for wind power
forecasting. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2007;22(1):258e65.
[6] Pinson P, Kariniotakis G. Wind power forecasting using fuzzy neural networks
enhanced with on-line prediction risk assessment. In: 2003 IEEE bologna
power tech conference proceedings, vol. 2. IEEE; 2003. p. 8.
[7] Lei M, Shiyan L, Chuanwen J, Hongling L, Yan Z. A review on the forecasting of
wind speed and generated power. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13(4):
915e20.
[8] Guoyang W, Yang X, Shasha W. Discussion about short-term forecast of wind
speed on wind farm. Jilin Electric Power 2005;181(5):21e4.
[9] Wang X, Guo P, Huang X. A review of wind power forecasting models. Energy
procedia 2011;12:770e8.
[10] Li G, Shi J. On comparing three artificial neural networks for wind speed
forecasting. Appl Energy 2010;87(7):2313e20.
[11] Methaprayoon K, Yingvivatanapong C, Lee W-J, Liao JR. An integration of ann
wind power estimation into unit commitment considering the forecasting
uncertainty. IEEE Trans Ind Appl 2007;43(6):1441e8.
[12] Wang S-X, Li M, Zhao L, Jin C. Short-term wind power prediction based on
improved small-world neural network. Neural Comput Appl 2019;31(7):
3173e85.
[13] Nielson J, Bhaganagar K, Meka R, Alaeddini A. Using atmospheric inputs for
artificial neural networks to improve wind turbine power prediction. Energy
2020;190:116273.
[14] Sideratos G, Hatziargyriou ND. Probabilistic wind power forecasting using
radial basis function neural networks. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2012;27(4):
1788e96.
[15] Mishra S, Dash P. Short-term prediction of wind power using a hybrid pseudo-
inverse legendre neural network and adaptive firefly algorithm. Neural
Comput Appl 2019;31(7):2243e68.
[16] Zeng J, Qiao W. Support vector machine-based short-term wind power fore-
casting. In: 2011 IEEE/PES power systems conference and exposition. IEEE;
2011. p. 1e8.
[17] Fu C, Li G-Q, Lin K-P, Zhang H-J. Short-term wind power prediction based on
improved chicken algorithm optimization support vector machine. Sustain-
ability 2019;11(2):512.
[18] Heinermann J, Kramer O. Precise wind power prediction with svm ensemble
regression. In: International conference on artificial neural networks.
Springer; 2014. p. 797e804.
[19] Heinermann J, Kramer O. Machine learning ensembles for wind power pre-
diction. Renew Energy 2016;89:671e9.
[20] Sideratos G, Hatziargyriou N. Using radial basis neural networks to estimate
wind power production. In: 2007 IEEE power engineering society general
meeting. IEEE; 2007. p. 1e7.
[21] Hong Y-Y, Rioflorido CLPP. A hybrid deep learning-based neural network for
24-h ahead wind power forecasting. Appl Energy 2019;250:530e9.
[22] J. Chen, Q. Zhu, H. Li, L. Zhu, D. Shi, Y. Li, X. Duan, Y. Liu, Learning heteroge-
neous features jointly: a deep end-to-end framework for multi-step short-
term wind power prediction, IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy.
[23] Le QV, et al. A tutorial on deep learning part 2: Autoencoders, convolutional
neural networks and recurrent neural networks. Google Brain; 2015. p. 1e20.
R. Meka, A. Alaeddini and K. Bhaganagar
[24] Barbounis TG, Theocharis JB, Alexiadis MC, Dokopoulos PS. Long-term wind
speed and power forecasting using local recurrent neural network models.
IEEE Trans Energy Convers 2006;21(1):273e84.
[25] Senjyu T, Yona A, Urasaki N, Funabashi T. Application of recurrent neural
network to long-term-ahead generating power forecasting for wind power
generator. In: 2006 IEEE PES power systems conference and exposition. IEEE;
2006. p. 1260e5.
[26] Felder M, Kaifel A, Graves A. Wind power prediction using mixture density
recurrent neural networks. In: Poster presentation Gehalten auf der European
wind energy conference; 2010.
[27] Chen G. A gentle tutorial of recurrent neural network with error back-
propagation. arXiv preprint, 1610.02583.
[28] F. A. Gers, J. Schmidhuber, F. Cummins, Learning to forget: Continual predic-
tion with lstm.
[29] Sundermeyer M, Schlüter R, Ney H. Lstm neural networks for language
modeling. In: Thirteenth annual conference of the international speech
communication association; 2012.
[30] Hochreiter S, Schmidhuber J. Long short-term memory. Neural Comput
1997;9(8):1735e80.
[31] Gers FA, Schmidhuber J. Recurrent nets that time and count. In: Proceedings of
the IEEE-INNS-ENNS international joint conference on neural networks. IJCNN
2000. Neural computing: new challenges and perspectives for the new mil-
lennium, vol. 3. IEEE; 2000. p. 189e94.
[32] Gers FA, Schraudolph NN, Schmidhuber J. Learning precise timing with lstm
recurrent networks. J Mach Learn Res 2002;3(Aug):115e43.
[33] Sutskever I, Vinyals O, Le QV. Sequence to sequence learning with neural
networks. In: Advances in neural information processing systems; 2014.
p. 3104e12.
[34] Vinyals O, Kaiser Ł, Koo T, Petrov S, Sutskever I, Hinton G. Grammar as a
foreign language. In: Advances in neural information processing systems;
2015. p. 2773e81.
[35] Graves A, Mohamed A-r, Hinton G. Speech recognition with deep recurrent
neural networks. In: 2013 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech
and signal processing. IEEE; 2013. p. 6645e9.
[36] Xiaoyun Q, Xiaoning K, Chao Z, Shuai J, Xiuda M. Short-term prediction of
wind power based on deep long short-term memory. In: 2016 IEEE PES asia-
pacific power and energy engineering conference (APPEEC). IEEE; 2016.
p. 1148e52.
[37] Wu W, Chen K, Qiao Y, Lu Z. Probabilistic short-term wind power forecasting
based on deep neural networks. In: 2016 international conference on prob-
abilistic methods applied to power systems (PMAPS). IEEE; 2016. p. 1e8.
[38] Lo
pez E, Valle C, Allende H, Gil E, Madsen H. Wind power forecasting based on
echo state networks and long short-term memory. Energies 2018;11(3):526.
[39] Shi X, Lei X, Huang Q, Huang S, Ren K, Hu Y. Hourly day-ahead wind power
prediction using the hybrid model of variational model decomposition and
long short-term memory. Energies 2018;11(11):3227.
[40] Cali U, Sharma V. Short-term wind power forecasting using long-short term
memory based recurrent neural network model and variable selection, vol. 8;
2019. p. 103e10.
[41] Yu R, Gao J, Yu M, Lu W, Xu T, Zhao M, Zhang J, Zhang R, Zhang Z. Lstm-efg for
wind power forecasting based on sequential correlation features. Future
Generat Comput Syst 2019;93:33e42.
[42] Hao Y, Tian C. A novel two-stage forecasting model based on error factor and
ensemble method for multi-step wind power forecasting. Appl Energy
2019;238:368e83.
[43] Liu Y, Guan L, Hou C, Han H, Liu Z, Sun Y, Zheng M. Wind power short-term
prediction based on lstm and discrete wavelet transform. Appl Sci
2019;9(6):1108.
[44] Xu G, Xia L. Short-term prediction of wind power based on adaptive lstm. In:
2018 2nd IEEE conference on energy internet and energy system integration
(EI2). IEEE; 2018. p. 1e5.
[45] X. Wang, Z. Li, J. Zhang, H. Liu, C. Qiu, X. Cai, An lstm-attention wind power
prediction method considering multiple factors.
[46] M. Du, Improving lstm neural networks for better short-term wind power
predictions, arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.00489.
[47] Zhou B, Ma X, Luo Y, Yang D. Wind power prediction based on lstm networks
and nonparametric kernel density estimation. IEEE Access 2019;7:
165279e92.
[48] Sun Y, Wang P, Zhai S, Hou D, Wang S, Zhou Y. Ultra short-term probability
prediction of wind power based on lstm network and condition normal dis-
tribution. Wind Energy 2020;23(1):63e76.
[49] Greff K, Srivastava RK, Koutník J, Steunebrink BR, Schmidhuber J. Lstm: a
search space odyssey. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning
systems 2016;28(10):2222e32.
[50] Lea C, Flynn MD, Vidal R, Reiter A, Hager GD. Temporal convolutional net-
works for action segmentation and detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE
conference on computer vision and pattern recognition; 2017. p. 156e65.
[51] Kim TS, Reiter A. Interpretable 3d human action analysis with temporal
convolutional networks. In: 2017 IEEE conference on computer vision and
pattern recognition workshops (CVPRW). IEEE; 2017. p. 1623e31.
[52] A. v. d. Oord, S. Dieleman, H. Zen, K. Simonyan, O. Vinyals, A. Graves, N.
Kalchbrenner, A. Senior, K. Kavukcuoglu, Wavenet: a generative model for
raw audio, arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.03499.
[53] Pelletier C, Webb GI, Petitjean F. Temporal convolutional neural network for
13
Energy 221 (2021) 119759
the classification of satellite image time series. Rem Sens 2019;11(5):523.
[54] Razavian N, Sontag D. Temporal convolutional neural networks for diagnosis
from lab tests. arXiv preprint, 1511.07938.
[55] Jarrett D, Yoon J, van der Schaar M. Dynamic prediction in clinical survival
analysis using temporal convolutional networks. IEEE J Biomed Eng Health
Commun 2019 Jul 17;24(2). 424-36.
[56] Lin L, Xu B, Wu W, Richardson T, Bernal EA. Medical time series classification
with hierarchical attention-based temporal convolutional networks: a case
study of myotonic dystrophy diagnosis. arXiv preprint, 1903.117481.
[57] Moor M, Horn M, Rieck B, Roqueiro D, Borgwardt K. Temporal convolutional
networks and dynamic time warping can drastically improve the early pre-
diction of sepsis. arXiv preprint, 1902.01659.
[58] Catling FJ, Wolff AH. Temporal convolutional networks allow early prediction
of events in critical care. J Am Med Inf Assoc 2020;27(3):355e65.
[59] Bai S, Kolter JZ, Koltun V. An empirical evaluation of generic convolutional and
recurrent networks for sequence modeling. arXiv preprint, 1803.01271.
[60] Bartlett P. Introduction to time series analysis. lecture 2014;5.
[61] Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel O,
Blondel M, Prettenhofer P, Weiss R, Dubourg V, et al. Scikit-learn: machine
learning in python. J Mach Learn Res 2011;12(Oct):2825e30.
[62] Lea C, Vidal R, Reiter A, Hager GD. Temporal convolutional networks: a unified
approach to action segmentation. In: European conference on computer
vision. Springer; 2016. p. 47e54.
[63] Re
my P. Tcn library. https://github.com/philipperemy/keras-tcn.
[64] Long J, Shelhamer E, Darrell T. Fully convolutional networks for semantic
segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and
pattern recognition; 2015. p. 3431e40.
[65] Yu F, Koltun V. Multi-scale context aggregation by dilated convolutions. arXiv
preprint, 1511.07122.
[66] Srivastava N, Hinton G, Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I, Salakhutdinov R. Dropout: a
simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. J Mach Learn Res
2014;15(1):1929e58.
[67] Gal Y, Ghahramani Z. A theoretically grounded application of dropout in
recurrent neural networks. In: Advances in neural information processing
systems; 2016. p. 1019e27.
[68] Goodfellow I, Bengio Y, Courville A. Deep learning. MIT press; 2016.
[69] Chollet F, et al. Keras. 2015. https://keras.io.
[70] Abadi M, Agarwal A, Barham P, Brevdo E, Chen Z, Citro C, Corrado GS, Davis A,
Dean J, Devin M, Ghemawat S, Goodfellow I, Harp A, Irving G, Isard M, Jia Y,
Jozefowicz R, Kaiser L, Kudlur M, Levenberg J, Mane
D, Monga R, Moore S,
Murray D, Olah C, Schuster M, Shlens J, Steiner B, Sutskever I, Talwar K,
Tucker P, Vanhoucke V, Vasudevan V, Vie
gas F, Vinyals O, Warden P,
Wattenberg M, Wicke M, Yu Y, Zheng X. TensorFlow: large-scale machine
learning on heterogeneous systems. 2015. software available from: tensor-
flow.org, https://www.tensorflow.org/.
[71] LeCun Y, Boser B, Denker JS, Henderson D, Howard RE, Hubbard W, Jackel LD.
Backpropagation applied to handwritten zip code recognition. Neural Comput
1989;1(4):541e51.
[72] Ju Y, Sun G, Chen Q, Zhang M, Zhu H, Rehman MU. A model combining
convolutional neural network and lightgbm algorithm for ultra-short-term
wind power forecasting. IEEE Access 2019;7:28309e18.
[73] Uyanık GK, Güler N. A study on multiple linear regression analysis. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences 2013;106:234e40.
[74] M. Claesen, J. Simm, D. Popovic, Y. Moreau, B. De Moor, Easy hyperparameter
search using optunity, arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.1114.
[75] Bergstra J, Bengio Y. Random search for hyper-parameter optimization. J Mach
Learn Res 2012;13(Feb):281e305.
[76] N. Reimers, I. Gurevych, Optimal hyperparameters for deep lstm-networks for
sequence labeling tasks, arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06799.
[77] E. Brochu, V. M. Cora, N. De Freitas, A tutorial on bayesian optimization of
expensive cost functions, with application to active user modeling and hier-
archical reinforcement learning, arXiv preprint arXiv:1012.2599.
[78] Y. Sun, H. Gong, Y. Li, D. Zhang, Hyperparameter importance analysis based on
n-rrelieff algorithm., Int J Comput Commun Contr 14 (4).
[79] Luo G. A review of automatic selection methods for machine learning algo-
rithms and hyper-parameter values. Network Modeling Analysis in Health
Informatics and Bioinformatics 2016;5(1):18.
[80] Calandra R, Gopalan N, Seyfarth A, Peters J, Deisenroth MP. Bayesian gait
optimization for bipedal locomotion. In: International conference on learning
and intelligent optimization. Springer; 2014. p. 274e90.
[81] Zhang X, Chen X, Yao L, Ge C, Dong M. Deep neural network hyperparameter
optimization with orthogonal array tuning. In: International conference on
neural information processing. Springer; 2019. p. 287e95.
[82] Taguchi G. System of experimental design; engineering methods to optimize
quality and minimize costs. 1987. Tech. rep.
[83] Zhao W, Gao Y, Ji T, Wan X, Ye F, Bai G. Deep temporal convolutional networks
for short-term traffic flow forecasting. IEEE Access 2019;7:114496e507.
[84] SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, 1989-2019, Jmp version 15.
[85] T. Chai, R. R. Draxler, Root mean square error (rmse) or mean absolute error
(mae)?earguments against avoiding rmse in the literature.
[86] Chehbouni A, Nouvellon Y, Lhomme J-P, Watts C, Boulet G, Kerr Y, Moran MS,
Goodrich D. Estimation of surface sensible heat flux using dual angle obser-
vations of radiative surface temperature. Agric For Meteorol 2001;108(1):
55e65.