Wind power prediction using ML
and DL methodologies
Arun Kumar M, Caroline Dorathy Esther J, Sabareshwaran M T,
Dr. M K Kavithadevi, Dr. Sriharipriya KC
Abstract
Wind power prediction is crucial for
efficient utilization of renewable energy
sources and grid management. In this
study, various machine learning (ML) and
deep learning (DL) methodologies to
improve the accuracy of wind power
forecasts are explored. The approach
encompasses techniques such as
Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN),
Long Short-Term Memory Networks
(LSTM), and dense models to predict wind
power generation for the next 15 days. A
novel evaluation metric, the R2 score, is
also proposed to assess model
performance. By leveraging these
methodologies, it is aimed to enhance the
accuracy of wind power forecasting
beyond current standards, facilitating
better integration of renewable energy into
the grid infrastructure.
Introduction
With the global population expanding
rapidly and fossil fuel reserves dwindling,
the imperative for clean, sustainable
energy sources has never been more
pressing. In this context, wind energy
emerges as a viable solution, offering a
renewable and environmentally friendly
alternative to traditional energy sources.
Harnessing the power of wind has been
integral to human civilization for centuries,
driving windmills to pump water and grind
grain. However, despite its potential, wind
energy has historically faced economic
challenges, often being deemed costly and
unpredictable compared to conventional
fuels like petroleum.
In response to these challenges, the field of
wind prediction has garnered significant
attention in research circles, aiming to
enhance the accuracy and reliability of
wind power forecasts. Traditionally, two
main approaches have been employed for
wind prediction: Numerical Simulation
and Meteorological Information
Perception, and Historical Data Processing
with Artificial Intelligence techniques. The
former utilizes real-time meteorological
data to construct simulation models, while
the latter leverages historical data and AI
algorithms for prediction.
In recent years, the advent of deep learning
has revolutionized wind power prediction,
enabling the development of sophisticated
models capable of capturing the complex
relationships inherent in wind data. These
deep learning models, including
Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN),
Long Short-Term Memory Networks
(LSTM), Bidirectional LSTM (BiLSTM),
Gated Recurrent Units (GRU),
Bidirectional GRU (BiGRU), Deep
Confidence Networks (DBN), and
Autoencoders (AE), have demonstrated
remarkable efficacy in solving nonlinear
problems and improving wind power
prediction accuracy.
In this study, delve into the realm of
machine learning (ML) and deep learning
(DL) methodologies for wind power
prediction, aiming to contribute to the
advancement of renewable energy
integration and grid management. By
exploring various modeling techniques and
evaluation metrics, it is endeavoured to
enhance the reliability and efficiency of
wind power forecasting, thereby
facilitating the transition towards a more
sustainable energy future.
Literature review
LSTM can capture complex temporal
dependencies inherent in wind speed data.
LSTM can remember past information for
an extended period which allows them to
capture these complex temporal
dependencies and make accurate
predictions for the short-term. LSTM can
also handle non-linearity and complex
patterns in data very well. Recent studies
delve into utilizing LSTMs for wind
prediction, frequently implementing hybrid
models with other techniques to enhance
accuracy. Concurrently, researchers strive
to refine the optimization process and
enhance data preprocessing, both
contributing to improved wind prediction
accuracy. Reference [1] presents a new
optimization technique based on stochastic
fractal search and particle swarm
optimization (SFS-PSO) to optimize the
parameters of the LSTM network. This
sequential hybrid architecture utilizes
LSTM for initial predictions, followed by
SFS-PSO optimization to refine the results
and elevate evaluation criteria. The
algorithm specifically incorporates SFS to
enhance the exploitation phase, leading to
improved performance and improved
evaluation matrices such as mean absolute
error (MAE), Nash Sutcliffe Efficiency
(NSE), mean square error (MSE),
coefficient of determination (R2), root
mean squared error (RMSE). The
experimental results illustrated that the
proposed optimization of LSTM using
SFS-PSO model achieved the best results
with R2 equaling 99.99% in predicting the
wind power values. Reference [2] aims to
beat LSTM and TCN model accuracy by
incorporating the CEEMDAN algorithm.
CEEMDAN (Complete Ensemble
Empirical Mode Decomposition with
Adaptive Noise) This technique
decomposes the original wind energy data
into multiple Intrinsic Mode Functions
(IMFs) representing different time scales
and frequency components. CEEMDAN is
applied to decompose initial wind energy
data to cut down volatility and randomized
change. In the training process of LSTM
and TCN, LM is applied to discover the
ideal super parameters that should move
forward the exactness of the model and
decrease those preparing the long haul of
the model. TCN excels at long-term
prediction due to its ability to capture
long-range dependencies. The combination
TCN and LSTM allows the model to
capture both short-term and long-term
trends in the wind energy data, potentially
leading to more accurate predictions. In
this model, LSTM predicts the short-term
components (IMF1 and IMF2) extracted
by CEEMDAN and TCN predicts the
long-term components (IMF3 to IMFn)
extracted by CEEMDAN. CEEMDAN-
TCN and CEEMDAN-LSTM have close
accuracy of 91.2% and 92.5% respectively
while the accuracy of CEEMDAN-LSTM-
TCN is 99.8%. Longer input data offers
more information but includes both
valuable and misleading elements. If the
learning rate is too small, the model will
converge too slowly, the training time will
be too long, or it will fall into a local
minimum, while if the learning rate is
adjusted too large, the loss function may
oscillate during the training process,
making it difficult to converge. Therefore,
it is necessary to seek suitable
hyperparameters to balance various
constraints to achieve better prediction
results [3]. While the grid search method is
a common optimization algorithm it has
high time complexity. So multi-step grid
search is proposed in [3] to find good
parameters. It is divided into two steps. In
the first step, relatively good parameters
are found over a wide range, with a larger
amount of parameter updates each time. In
the second step the search scale is
narrowed based on good values obtained in
the first stage and the update step is
smaller in the second stage reducing the
total search time without missing too many
probabilities. The proposed hybrid CNN-
LSTM model beats the traditional single
models like RNN, LSTM, and CNN
models in accuracy. MAE, RMSE, CC,
and R2 of CNN-LSTM are 0.4783, 0.6480,
0.9528, and 0.9070 respectively. While
LSTMs excel at capturing temporal
dependencies, they may struggle with
long-term predictions (days or weeks) due
to the vanishing gradient problem.
Reference [4] proposes a prediction model
based on a Gated Transformer for
medium- to long-term wind power
prediction. In this paper (Numerical
Weather Prediction)NWP data information
is introduced as auxiliary information,
improving data correlation and ensuring
the effectiveness of data feature extraction.
The inclusion of NWP data significantly
improved the average accuracy of all
prediction models by 117% for medium-
to long-term forecasts, as demonstrated in
this study. Dilated convolution serves as
an effective tool for extracting features
from lengthy sequential data. In the
model's Encoder component, it handles
historical wind power and NWP data.
Leveraging multi-head attention and a
gating mechanism, the Encoder adeptly
captures crucial features. As a result, the
encoder produces an attention weight map,
which provides insights into the
distribution of information within the data.
The decoder predicts future wind power
values by taking the output of the encoder
and short historical wind power data as
inputs and uses cross-attention to leverage
information from the encoder. The
hyperparameter settings in this paper were
as follows: Batchsize = 128; Learning rate
= 1 × 10−4; Using kaiming weight
initialization; Epoch = 400; Dropout = 0.1.
The Gated Transformer model
outperformed all other models in terms of
prediction accuracy, achieving an
improvement of approximately 8% for
short-term forecasts and 11% for medium-
to long-term forecasts. Reference [5]
proposes An EEMD and Transformer
hybrid forecasting system for multistep
short-term wind speed forecasting based
only on the wind speed history data.
EEMD decomposition strategy is
employed in the data preprocessing stage
to effectively reduce noise pollution in the
original data, the proposed model is
trained using a very large-scale wind speed
data(19 years of data) and performance
evaluation is performed on wind speed
data throughout the year. This paper sets a
new benchmark for wind speed forecasting
by achieving significantly lower prediction
errors compared to previous methods. At
3, 6, 12, and 24 hours, the model's average
error (MAE) is 0.243, 0.290, 0.362, and
0.453, respectively, representing a
substantial improvement over the state-of-
the-art. This EEMD-Transformer model
outperforms the EEMD-gated recurrent
unit (GRU) model in mean absolute error
(MAE), root mean square error (RMSE),
and R; MAE decreases by 3.5%, RMSE
decreases by 4.7%, and R improves by
0.0018, while mean absolute percentage
error (MAPE) increases by 0.91.
No Paper name Author Methodology Hyperparameters Strength and weakness Accuracy
(R2)

1 Wind Power Tarek, Zahraa & LSTM and SFS- ω, C1, C2, r1, r2, β, β’ The LSTM layer could MAE-
Prediction Shams, Mahmoud PSO model Batch size - 64, Learning potentially learn and 0.000002
Based on & Elshewey, (Stochastic Fractal rate - 0.0001, Epochs - exploit the temporal NSE -
Machine Ahmed & El- Search and Particle 50, Optimizer - Adam, patterns within the 1.2×10−7
Learning and kenawy, El-Sayed Swarm Activation function (in wind data to improve MBE-
Deep Learning & Ibrahim, Optimization ) output)- Linear, prediction accuracy. 0.00001
Models Abdelhameed & Activation function (in SFS technique can R2-
Abdelhamid, hidden(5 Layers))- ReLU, help select relevant 99.99%
Abdelaziz & El- KNN regressor features from the wind RMSE-
dosuky, Mohamed. n_neighbors = 2, weights = dataset, potentially 0.00002
distance, reducing noise and to
Bagging regressor boost training
n_estimators = 10, efficiency. PSO can
max_samples = 1, improve robustness by
GB regressor optimizing
n_estimators = 200, hyperparameters
learning_rate = 0.1

2 Prediction of Chenjia Hu, Yan LSTM and Time Not Mentioned CEEMDAN- MAE-
ultra-short-term Zhao, He Jiang, Convolution decreases the influence 0.136
wind power Mingkun Jiang, network (TCN) of non-stationary and MSE-
based on Fucai You, Qian with Complete random fluctuation in 0.059
CEEMDAN- Liu Ensemble the original data on the R2-
LSTM-TCN Empirical Mode prediction 0.998
Decomposition Accurately capture
with Adaptive both short-term and
Noise long-term
(CEEMDAN). dependencies using
LSTMs and TCNs,

3 Wind speed Zhipeng Shen, Hybrid LSTM- Learning rate = 0.011 and The hybrid approach MAE -
prediction of Xuechun Fan, CNN model that input length = 26 of LSTM and CNN 0.9870
unmanned Liangyu Zhang, uses Three convolutional layer- combined with grid R2-
sailboat based Haomiao Yu grid search with filter size is (1, 3), (1, 3) search and early 94.44%
on CNN and early stopping and (1, 2), the stride is (1, stopping offers RMSE-
LSTM hybrid 1). Filter 1 = x16 size(1,3) potential strengths for 1.3718
neural network Filter 2= x16 size(1,3) wind power CC-
Filter 3= x16 size(1,2) prediction: 0.9723
Dropout ratio = 0.3 LSTM Addressing both
cells 1= 10 LSTM cells 2= temporal and spatial
10 Activation function - aspects of the data
ReLU ,Optimizers - Adam, Finding the
Epochs- 30, Batch size- configuration that
128 minimizes prediction
error
Improving efficiency
by stopping
unnecessary
evaluations

4 Research on Huang, Qiyue & Gated Transformer Batchsize = 128; Learning Efficiently processes With
Wind Power Wang, Yapeng & rate = 1 × 10−4, Using long historical and NWP
Prediction Yang, Xu & Im, kaiming weight future NWP data MSE-
Based on a Sio-Kei initialization; Epoch = sequences relevant to 0.0555
Gated 400; Dropout = 0.1 wind power prediction. MAE-
Transformer Transformer models 0.1376
can be Without
computationally NWP
expensive, and the MSE-
addition of the gating 0.0631
mechanism might MAE-
further increase this 0.1408
complexity.
Use of NWP data
gives Improve data
correlation Improve
feature extraction

5 Multistep short- Huijuan Wu, Transformer model EEMD mode number= 16 Removal of start/end MAE-
term wind Keqilao Meng, with EEMD Learning rate= 0.003, tags (SOS/EOS) 0.167
speed Daoerji Fan, decomposition and Optimization- Adam, makes the model more RMSE-
forecasting Zhanqiang Zhang, specific Batch size= 512, suitable for fixed- 0.221
using Qing Liu adjustments for Dropout= 0.1 length prediction MAPE-
transformer wind speed Window size of 𝑿= 18 EEMD Potentially 22.40
prediction Sequence length of 𝑿 (𝑙𝑥) reduces noise and R-
= 24 improve model 0.9717
Model dimension= 128 generalizability and
Feedforward dimension can extract different
(𝑑𝑒)= 256 time-scale features
Heads number= 2 Transformer can
Encoder layers= 1 capture long-range
Decoder layers= 1 dependencies and is
Window size of 𝒀= 18 well-suited for
handling the sequential
data

6 Wind Power Wen-Hui Lin , Temporal Number of filter= 32 The proposed scheme MAPE =
Forecasting Ping Wang , Kuo- Convolutional Kernel size = 10 effectively solves the 5.13%
with Deep Ming Chao , Network (TCN) Dilations = [1,2,4,8,16] long-distance
Learning Hsiao-Chung Li, algorithm of DLNs Epochs = 50 dependency problem,
Networks: Zong-Yu Yang Optimizer = Adam as demonstrated by the
Time-Series and Yu-Huang Lai Number of stack = 4 input of large amounts
Forecasting NP = 10, F = 0.5, CR = of temporal–spatial
0.3, G = 30 series data such as
one-year wind power
data.
Methodology
Wind power prediction is a pivotal area of
research aimed at enhancing the efficiency
and reliability of renewable energy
sources. In this project, an innovative
methodology that integrates traditional
Machine Learning (ML) algorithms and
Deep Learning (DL) models for wind
power prediction is proposed, leveraging
the TataPower dataset. This approach
combines the strength of ML algorithms in
capturing intricate patterns with the
capability of DL models, in handling
temporal dependencies. By amalgamating
these techniques, it is aimed to surpass
conventional methods and achieve more
accurate wind power predictions.
The methodology is initiated by collecting
the TataPower dataset, encompassing
multivariate time-series data related to
wind speed, wind direction, and power
generation, among other parameters.
Preliminary preprocessing steps involved
handling missing values and ensuring
uniformity in data formats. Date and time
information was meticulously extracted
and formatted to facilitate temporal
analysis. Furthermore, numerical features
were scaled to normalize the data
distribution, easing subsequent model
training.
To gain insights into the dataset's
characteristics, an extensive Exploratory
Data Analysis (EDA) phase is conducted.
Descriptive statistics and visualization
techniques, including pair plots and
correlation heatmaps, were employed to
uncover underlying patterns and
relationships between variables.
Additionally, a wind rose plot was
constructed to visualize the relationship
between wind direction and wind speed,
providing valuable insights into directional
wind patterns.
Feature engineering played a pivotal role
in enhancing the predictive capabilities of
the model. Key steps involved in feature
engineering included: Date and time
information from the timestamp column
were extracted and engineered to capture
temporal patterns inherent in the data.
Features such as year, month, day, hour,
and minute were derived to provide the
model with additional temporal context.
Domain-specific knowledge was leveraged
to engineer additional features that may
impact wind power generation. Features
related to weather conditions, geographical
location, and turbine specifications were
incorporated to enrich the dataset and
improve predictive performance. Features
that did not significantly influence the
target variable (power generation) were
identified and pruned from the dataset to
reduce noise and improve model
efficiency. This process involved careful
analysis and domain expertise to retain
only the most relevant features for
prediction. Numerical features were
normalized and scaled to ensure
uniformity in data distribution and prevent
features with larger magnitudes from
dominating the model training process.
This step was essential for stabilizing the
training process and improving
convergence during model optimization.
Techniques such as principal component
analysis (PCA) or feature importance
ranking were employed to select the most
informative features and reduce the
dimensionality of the dataset. By focusing
on the most relevant features, it is aimed to
streamline model training and enhance
predictive accuracy.

Figure 1: EDA
A scatter matrix was plotted to visualize
pairwise relationships between the
numerical features like wind speed,
theoretical power curve, wind direction
and LV ActivePower(kW).
From the scatter plot between wind speed
and Theoritical Power Curve, it is seen that
Wind Turbines Systems can't generate any
power if the wind speed is less than 4 m/s
When the wind speed is larger than 4 m/s
to 11 m/s, the relation between them are
linear meaning that increasing the wind
speed, allows turbines to generate more
power after the wind speed passes 11 m/s,
the power generated is saturated on 3600
KWh.
the theoretical power curve provides a
decent estimate of actual power output, but
other factors besides wind speed also
influence the LV Active Power generation.
To extract more meaningful features, new
attributes like Week, Month, Season, Day,
and Hour are created from the existing
"Date/Time" column. Finally, categorical
features such as "Seasons" are encoded
using a dictionary for the machine learning
models to understand them better.
Numerical features (power, wind speed,
Theoretical Power Curve and LV
ActivePower) are plotted against
categorical features (week, month, season)
using bar charts. This helps identify trends
in power generation based on these factors.
Figure 3: Numerical columns over the weeks

Figure 2: Colinear relation

The correlation coefficient between Wind

Speed and Theoretical power curve is very
close to 1, which indicates a very strong Figure 4: Numerical columns over the months
positive correlation. This means that as
wind speed increases, the theoretical
power curve prediction also increases. The
correlation between LV ActivePower and
Theoretical_Power_Curve is also positive
and relatively strong, but not as strong as
the correlation between wind speed and
theoretical power curve. This suggests that

Figure 5: Numerical columns over the seasons
Ensemble regression models are chosen
for their ability to capture complex
relationships within the dataset. The
ensemble models selected for this study
include Gradient Boosting Regressor,
Support Vector Regressor (SVR), Random
Forest Regressor, Linear Regression, Extra
Trees Regressor, AdaBoost Regressor,
Decision Tree Regressor, XGBoost
Regressor, and XGBoost with Random
Forest (XGBRF) Regressor. These models
offer diverse approaches to capturing the
underlying patterns in the data and
mitigating overfitting.
In selecting ensemble regression models
for wind power prediction, each model
was chosen for its unique strengths in
capturing different aspects of the dataset.
Gradient Boosting Regressor offers
sequential model fitting, reducing bias and
variance in predictions. Support Vector
Regressor (SVR) effectively handles high-
dimensional data and captures complex
nonlinear relationships. Random Forest
Regressor is robust to overfitting and
computationally efficient, suitable for
large datasets. Linear Regression provides
simplicity and interpretability, serving as a
baseline for comparison.
Extra Trees Regressor utilizes ensemble
learning for improved robustness and
generalization. AdaBoost Regressor
focuses on improving weak learners'
performance through sequential training.
Decision Tree Regressor captures
nonlinear relationships in data through
hierarchical partitioning. XGBoost
Regressor offers scalability, speed, and
regularization techniques for handling
diverse datasets. XGBoost with Random
Forest (XGBRF) Regressor combines
strengths for enhanced performance and
robustness. Each model contributes to a
comprehensive approach to wind power
prediction, leveraging their respective
strengths to capture the dataset's
complexity effectively.
Several regression algorithms were considered
for predicting wind turbine power generation:
1.Gradient Boosting Regressor (GBR): An
ensemble learning technique that builds
sequential trees, minimizing the residual errors
from the previous tree. The predicted output is
the sum of predictions from multiple weak
learners.
[ ]
K
y i=∑ ❑f k ( x i )
^
k=1
Where, ( ^
y i ) is the predicted output for the (
ith) instance, ( K ) is the number of weak
learners (trees) and ( f k ( x i ) ) represents the
prediction of the ( kth) weak learner for the
( ith) instance.
2. Support Vector Regressor (SVR): Utilizes
support vectors for regression. SVR finds the
hyperplane that best fits the data points while
maximizing the margin.
( )
1
n
[ minimize | w |2+ C ∑ ( ξ i +ξ ¿i ) ]
2 i=1
Where, ( w ) are the weights of the
hyperplane, ¿) is the regularization
parameter and (n) is the number of data
points.
3. Random Forest Regressor (RFR): An
ensemble learning method using decision
trees. It builds multiple decision trees during
training and outputs the mean prediction of the
individual trees.
1
N
[^
y i= ∑ f (x )]
N j=1 j i
Where, ( ^
y i ) is the predicted output for the
th
( i ) instance, ( N ) is the total number of
trees and ( f j ( x i )) represents the prediction
of the ( j th) tree for the ( i th) instance.
4. Linear Regression: A linear modeling
technique that assumes a linear relationship
between the input features and the target
variable.
[^
y i= β0 + β 1 x i 1 + β 2 x i 2+ …+ β p x ip ]
Where, ( ^ y i ) is the predicted output for the
( i ) instance, ( β 0) is the intercept and
th
( β 1 , β 2 , … , β p \) are the coefficients of the
input features ( x i 1 , x i 2 , … , x ip ¿ )
respectively.
5. Extra Trees Regressor (ETR): An ensemble
learning algorithm similar to Random Forest,
but with random splits.
N
1
[^
y i= ∑ f (x )]
N j=1 j i
Where, ( ^ y i ) is the predicted output for the
th
( i ) instance, ( N ) is the total number of
trees and ( f j ( x i )) represents the prediction
of the ( j th) tree for the ( i th) instance.
6. AdaBoost Regressor: A boosting algorithm
that builds a strong model by combining
multiple weak learners. It iteratively adjusts
the weights of misclassified samples to focus
on the harder cases.
[ F m ( x ) =Fm −1 ( x )+ α m h m ( x ) ]
Where, ( F m ( x )) is the ensemble prediction
after ( m) iterations, ( α m ) is the weight of
the ( mth) weak learner and ( hm ( x ) )
represents the prediction of the ( mth) weak
learner.
7. Decision Tree Regressor: A non-parametric
model that predicts the value of a target
variable based on the decision rules learned
from the data features.
y i=predict ( x i ) ]
[^
Where, ( ^ y i ) is the predicted output for the
( i ) instance and ( predict ( x i) ) represents
th
the prediction of the decision tree for the
th
( i ) instance.
8. XGBoost Regressor: A gradient boosting
algorithm that optimizes the mean squared
error objective function by adding weak
learners.
K
y i=∑ f k ( x i ) ]
[^
k=1
Where, ( ^
y i ) is the predicted output for the (
ith) instance, ( K ) is the number of weak
learners (trees) and ( f k ( x i ) ) represents the
prediction of the ( kth) weak learner for the
( ith) instance.
9. XGBRF Regressor: A variant of XGBoost
designed for random forests, which applies a
similar boosting approach but utilizes
randomization in the tree-building process.
K
y i=∑ f k ( x i ) ]
[^
k=1
Where, ( ^
y i ) is the predicted output for the (
ith) instance, ( K ) is the number of weak
learners (trees) and ( f k ( x i ) ) represents the
prediction of the ( kth) weak learner for the
( ith) instance.
Model training and evaluation are
conducted iteratively for each ensemble
regression model. The training data
(`X_1`, `y_train`) are used to fit the model,
while the testing data (`X_1_test`, `y_test`)
are employed to assess model
performance. Evaluation metrics such as
the coefficient of determination (R² score)
and Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) are
calculated to gauge the model's goodness
of fit and prediction accuracy.
Hyperparameter tuning is essential for
optimizing the performance of each
regression model. A hyperparameter
search space is defined for each model,
including parameters such as
`n_estimators`, `max_depth`,
`learning_rate`, `min_child_weight`, and
`base_score`. Randomized Search Cross-
Validation is employed to efficiently
search over the parameter grid and find the
optimal hyperparameters that maximize
the R² score.
After hyperparameter tuning, the best-
performing model is selected based on the
highest R² score obtained. The selected
model's performance is further evaluated
using k-fold cross-validation to assess its
generalization capability. Visualization
techniques are utilized to compare the
cross-validation scores of different models,
facilitating the identification of the most
suitable model for wind power prediction.
To facilitate the training process of the
models, a function
`compile_and_fit(model, window,
patience=3)` is crafted. This function
streamlines the compilation and training
steps. It incorporates early stopping via
`tf.keras.callbacks.EarlyStopping` to
mitigate overfitting. The models are
compiled using Mean Absolute Error
( MAE ) as the loss function and Adam
optimizer with a learning rate of ( lr=0.01
).
For multi-step prediction, two distinct
strategies are explored:
1. Single Shot Predictions: This approach
entails predicting the entire timeseries in
one step. It is suitable for scenarios where
a sequence of future values needs to be
forecasted collectively.
2. AutoRegressive Model: In this
paradigm, the model makes predictions
iteratively, with each output being fed
back as input for the subsequent prediction
step. This method is adept at capturing
dynamic temporal dependencies within the
data.
A `WindowGenerator` object is
instantiated to facilitate the generation of
data slices from the dataset, catering to the
requirements of both approaches.
Two baseline models are devised to
establish a performance benchmark against
which the more complex models can be
evaluated:
Last Baseline: This model simply repeats
the last input timestep for the required
number of output timesteps. It serves as a
straightforward yet intuitive baseline for
comparison purposes.
Repeat Baseline: Here, the previous 15
days' data is replicated, assuming that the
subsequent 15 days will exhibit similar
patterns. This simplistic model offers a
basic estimation strategy.
These baseline models provide initial
insights into the predictive capacity of the
subsequent models.
Several single-shot models are developed,
each with its unique architecture and
capabilities:
Linear Model: This model predicts the
entire sequence in one step, leveraging
linear layers. It reshapes the output to
conform to the desired output shape.
[ y linear=W linear × x+ blinear ]
where( W linear ) represents the weight
matrix, ( x )denotes the input, and ( b linear ) is
the bias vector.
Dense Model: Adding dense layers
between the input and output enhances the
model's capacity to capture intricate
patterns in the data. This architecture
introduces nonlinear transformations to the
prediction process, potentially improving
performance.
[ y dense =σ ( W dense × x +b dense ) ]
where ( σ ) represents the activation
function, ( W dense) denotes the weight
matrix, ( x ) is the input, and ( b dense) is the
bias vector.
CNN Model: By incorporating a
convolutional layer, this model is adept at
capturing local patterns and dependencies
within the data. The convolutional
operation enables the model to extract
spatial features, making it particularly
suitable for sequential data analysis.
[ y conv =σ ( W conv∗x +b conv ) ]
where (∗¿ ) denotes the convolution
operation, ( σ ) represents the activation
function, (W conv ) is the convolutional
kernel, ¿) is the input, and ¿) is the bias
vector.
RNN Model: Leveraging LSTM layers,
this model focuses on capturing temporal
dependencies within the data. The
recurrent nature of LSTM enables it to
retain information over time, facilitating
the prediction of multi-step sequences.
[ i t =σ ( W i ⋅ [ h t−1 , x t ] + bi ) ]
[ f t =σ ( W f ⋅ [ ht −1 , x t ] +b f ) ]
[ ot =σ ( W o ⋅ [ ht−1 , x t ] + bo ) ]
~
[ C t =tanh ( W C ⋅ [ ht−1 , x t ] + bC ) ]
~
[ C t =f t ⊙C t −1 +i t ⊙ C t ]
[ h t=ot ⊙ tanh ( Ct ) ]
where ( i t ), ( f t ), ( ot ), ¿), ( C t ), and ( h t−1 ) r
epresent the input gate, forget gate, output
gate, cell input, cell state, and hidden state
at time ¿) respectively. ( W i), ( W f ), ( W o), (
W C ) denote the weight matrices, ( x t )
represents the input at time (t), and ( b i),
( b f ), (b o), (b C) are the bias vectors.
These models are meticulously trained and
evaluated to gauge their effectiveness in
predicting multi-step sequences.
Hyperparameter tuning and iterative
refinement are employed to optimize
model performance further.
Results
Dataset Description
The dataset provides a comprehensive
overview of wind turbine performance and
environmental variables. It comprises four
key features: "LV ActivePower (kW),"
"Wind Speed (m/s),"
"Theoretical_Power_Curve (KWh)," and
"Wind Direction (°)." The "LV
ActivePower (kW)" column denotes the
actual power output generated by a wind
turbine, measured in kilowatts (kW). Its
values range from a minimum of -
2.471405 kW to a maximum of
3618.732910 kW, with a mean of
approximately 1307.68 kW and a standard
deviation of 1312.46 kW. The "Wind
Speed (m/s)" column quantifies the
velocity of wind at the turbine location,
expressed in meters per second (m/s).
Wind speeds vary from 0 m/s to
25.206011 m/s, with a mean of
approximately 7.56 m/s and a standard
deviation of 4.23 m/s. The
"Theoretical_Power_Curve (KWh)" likely
denotes the projected power output of the
turbine under optimal conditions,
measured in kilowatt-hours (KWh). Its
values span from 0 KWh to 3600 KWh,
with a mean of approximately 1492.18
KWh and a standard deviation of 1368.02
KWh. Lastly, the "Wind Direction (°)"
column provides insights into the
prevailing wind direction at the turbine
site, indicated in degrees (°). Wind
direction values range from 0° to
359.997589°, with a mean direction of
approximately 123.69° and a standard
deviation of 93.44°.

Figure 7: Correlation matrix

"Theoretical_Power_Curve (KWh)," and

"Wind Direction (°)." Notably, "LV
ActivePower (kW)" demonstrates strong
positive correlations with both "Wind
Speed (m/s)" (approximately 0.91) and
"Theoretical_Power_Curve (KWh)"
(approximately 0.95), indicating that
higher wind speeds and theoretical power
output correspond to increased active
power generation. Additionally, "Wind
Speed (m/s)" and
Figure 6: Scatter matrix "Theoretical_Power_Curve (KWh)"
exhibit a strong positive correlation
The correlation matrix offers insights into (approximately 0.94), suggesting that
the relationships among the variables "LV higher wind speeds lead to greater
ActivePower (kW)," "Wind Speed (m/s)," theoretical power output. Conversely,
"Wind Direction (°)" shows weak
correlations with the other variables,
implying minimal linear relationship with
active power, wind speed, and theoretical
Model Name R2_score RMSE power output.
Among the models assessed, the
GradientBoosting 94.646846 302.227414
Regressor
RandomForestRegressor,
ExtraTreesRegressor, and XGBRegressor
RandomForest 97.319413 213.867095 stand out for their notable strengths. These
Regressor
models demonstrate high R2 scores,
ExtraTrees 97.667454 199.500571
indicating their ability to effectively
Regressor
capture the variance in wind power.
DecisionTree 95.247386 284.770665
Regressor
Moreover, their low RMSE values signify
a high level of accuracy in predicting wind
XGBRegressor 97.965704 186.309943 power output. This suggests that these

XGBRFRegressor 94.158605 315.709240

Table 2: ML model evaluation metrics

models could be valuable assets in
accurately forecasting wind power, a
critical aspect of renewable energy
management. While other models such as
GradientBoostingRegressor and
DecisionTreeRegressor also exhibit
respectable performance, they may fall
short in terms of accuracy when compared
to the top-performing ones. Further
optimization through techniques like cross-
validation and hyperparameter tuning can
enhance the reliability and robustness of
the selected models, ensuring their
effectiveness in real-world wind power
prediction scenarios.
Figure 8: Wind turbine power production
prediction
DL Methodology
In evaluating the performance of the wind
power forecasting models, several key
metrics were considered including Mean
Absolute Error (MAE) and Root Mean
Squared Error (RMSE). The baseline
models, Last Baseline and Repeat
Baseline, provided important reference
points. The Repeat Baseline outperformed
the Last Baseline, which is expected as it
leverages previous data to make
predictions. However, both baseline
models were outperformed by the single-
shot models.
Among the single-shot models, including
the Linear Model, Dense Model, CNN
Model, and LSTM Model, the Dense
Model exhibited the most promising
performance. With additional dense layers
for more complex transformations, the
Dense Model achieved the lowest MAE
and RMSE compared to the other single-
shot models. This indicates that the Dense
Model was able to capture more nuanced
patterns and dependencies in the data,
leading to more accurate predictions.
While the Linear Model and CNN Model
performed relatively close to each other,
and the LSTM Model slightly
underperformed compared to the others,
they still provided competitive results.
Each model architecture has its own
strengths and weaknesses, with the CNN
Model focusing on spatial patterns and the
LSTM Model specializing in capturing
temporal dependencies.
Overall, the Dense Model emerged as the
top performer in terms of MAE and
RMSE. However, further analysis is
warranted to explore additional factors
such as computational efficiency,
interpretability, and generalization
performance on unseen data. Additionally,
it would be valuable to conduct more
extensive experimentation and fine-tuning
to optimize the models further and
potentially uncover new insights into wind
power forecasting.
Figure 9: Repeat baseline model
Figure 10: Dense model