Expert Systems With Applications 241 (2024) 122645

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Expert Systems With Applications

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa

Hybrid deep learning and quantum-inspired neural network for day-ahead

spatiotemporal wind speed forecasting
Ying-Yi Hong a, *, Christian Lian Paulo P. Rioflorido a, Weina Zhang b
a
Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Chung Yuan Christian University, Taoyuan 32023, Taiwan
b
College of Computer Science and Technology, Shanghai University of Electric Power, Shanghai 201306, PR China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Wind is an essential, clean and sustainable renewable source of energy; however, wind speed is stochastic and
Deep learning intermittent. Accurate wind power generation forecasts are required to ensure that power generation can be
Quantum computing scheduled economically and securely. This work proposes a hybrid deep learning technique that incorporates a
Quantum-inspired network
quantum-inspired neural network to predict wind speeds 24 h in advance. An innovative neural network tech­
Spatiotemporal data
Wind speed forecasting
nique is implemented by cascading parallel convolutional neural networks (CNNs) with a long short-term
memory (LSTM) and a quantum-inspired neural network (QINN). The proposed hybrid model is optimized
using two iterative loops: the outer loop is implemented by using quantum particle swarm optimization (QPSO)
to tune the structure of model and other hyperparameters/parameters. The inner loop uses an Adam optimizer to
tune the weights and biases of the proposed model. Spatiotemporal wind speeds at various locations provide the
2D input data. Simulation results reveal that the proposed method outperforms other methods for 24 h-ahead
wind speed forecasting.

1. Introduction
Reducing carbon dioxide emissions has become extremely important
as part of achieving the sustainable development goals (SDG) (particu­
larly goals 7 and 13) that were aggreed by members of the United Na­
tions. To achieve these goals, a rapid transition from fossil fuel
consumption, which contributes to climate change, must be made. Wind
energy is an integral part of this effective environmental and energy
solution (IRENA, 2019). Wind is varying and intermittent, complicating
the operation of power systems, and particularly unit commitment and
the scheduling of day-ahead generation. Developing highly accurate
forecasts of renewable energy output may significantly minimize the
risk of power system failures (Wang et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2020; Wu
et al., 2022).
Wind speed forecast models can be categorized into very-short-term
(a few seconds to 30 min in advance), short-term (30 min to 6 h in
advance), medium-term (6 h to 1 day in advance), and long-term (1 day
to 1 week or more in advance). Very-short-term forecasts are used to
control turbines and track loads in real time; short-term forecasts are
used to plan load dispatch; medium-term forecasts are used to schedule
traditional power generation to satisfy the load demand and enable
energy trading; and long-term forecasts are used to optimize unit
commitment (Wang et al., 2021).
The three types of wind speed forecasting models that have been
proposed in the literature are physical approaches, statistical methods
and artificial intelligence (AI)-based models (Zhang et al., 2019). These
are detailed below.
(1) Physical approaches to wind forecasting include numerical
weather prediction (NWP) (Xu et al., 2015; Buhan et al., 2016).
NWP solves dynamics and physics equations that express the
movements and variations of the atmosphere. Generally, super­
computers are required to solve the complicated NWP equations.
NWP is suitable for long-term wind speed forecasting.
(2) Statistical methods that are used to forecast wind energy gener­
ation include probabilistic forecasting (Heng et al., 2022), poly­
nomial autoregressive modeling (Karakuş et al., 2017), and
sparse Bayesian learning (Wang et al., 2019). However, these
techniques do not have adaptive or learning capabilities.
(3) The most popular methods for wind power/speed forecasting that
are based on AI are machine learning and deep learning. Ahmadi
et al. (2020) presented a tree-based XGBoost algorithm to train

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: yyhong@ee.cycu.edu.tw (Y.-Y. Hong), g11002803@cycu.edu.tw (C.L.P.P. Rioflorido), mszhangwn@shiep.edu.cn (W. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.122645
Received 9 June 2023; Received in revised form 15 November 2023; Accepted 15 November 2023
Available online 22 November 2023
0957-4174/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y.-Y. Hong et al.
model using the mean and standard deviation of wind speeds
measured at a height of 40 m. Zhang et al. (2015) used the Deep
Boltzmann Machine (DBM), pretrained by the greedy algorithm
and then fine-tuned by the back-propagation algorithm, to study
several minutes- to days-ahead wind speed forecasting. Nair et al.
(2017) firstly handled the linear features of raw wind speed
datasets by the Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average
(ARIMA) and then used Artificial Neural Network (ANN) to
perform nonlinear mapping. Sun et al. (2020) used variational
mode decomposition (VMD) to excavate implicit information in
original wind speed datasets and then used the random forest to
select the suitable inputs; they subsequently used various AI
techniques, such as Generalized Regression Neural Networks
(GRNN), to generate forecasts. Araya et al. (2020) used dense
layers of a neural network to build sub-sequences of wind speed
data with various timescales which were used as inputs to mul­
tiple Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM-M) to conduct 24 h-ahead
forecasting. Zhu et al. (2020) consolidated a unified framework
integrated Convolutional Neural Network (CNN, which selects
spatial feature) with LSTM (which processes temporal depen­
dence) to conduct wind speed forecasting. Wang et al. (2020)
used CNN to carry out short-term wind speed forecasting, using
information from neighboring wind farms. These methods do not
require a predetermined mathematical model and can handle
multiple inputs and outputs, and can extract the relevant features
of data.
Artificial intelligence is the most popular basis for forecasting wind
speed; however, related methods have some limitations as follows.
(1) The accuracy of regression results that are obtained by tree-based
machine learning algorithms depends on the split criterion
(Ahmadi et al., 2020), which must be set by trial-and-error.
(2) Only a supervised learning algorithm is implemented without
extracting features from datasets, resulting in long training time
(Zhang et al., 2015) and probably low accuracy (Ahmadi et al.,
2020; Zhang et al., 2015).
(3) Only temporal dependence is considered and the spatial corre­
lation of wind characteristics is ignored (Ahmadi et al., 2020;
Zhang et al., 2015; Nair et al., 2017; Sun et al., 2020; Araya et al.,
2020).
(4) Data pre-processing (such as by using ARIMA or VMD) is required
(Nair et al., 2017; Sun et al., 2020).
(5) The hyperparameters/parameters of machine/deep learning
models are set to fix the structure of predictive model, based on
experiences (Zhang et al., 2015; Nair et al., 2017; Sun et al., 2020;
Araya et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020;Wang et al., 2020).
Whereas various techniques for doing computational learning are
readily available, quantum computing represents a paradigm shift in
computing technologies. Several quantum algorithms are believed to
solve problems more efficiently than classical approaches, motivating
the use of quantum computing herein. The developers of classical al­
gorithms and quantum algorithms can exploit the strengths of both sets
of algorithms and thereby deepen our understanding of computational
limitation (Nielsen and Chuang, 2011). The research landscape has seen
the development of various quantum-inspired neural networks (QINNs)
in response to a wide range of computational challenges. These QINNs
have been explored and refined in multiple studies (Ganjefar and
Tofighi, 2018; Konar et al., 2020; Patel et al., 2021; Yan et al., 2021; Shi
et al., 2022). These endeavors highlight the significant potential and
value that quantum-inspired design principles bring to the realm of
neural networks. On the other hand, Quantum Particle Swarm Optimi­
zation has emerged as a robust strategy for optimization tasks, drawing
inspiration from quantum principles. It excels in navigating complex
parameter spaces and finding optimal solutions for diverse optimization
2
Expert Systems With Applications 241 (2024) 122645
problems (Li et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019; Fallahi and Taghadosi, 2022;
Kuranga and Pillay, 2022).
This work presents a hybrid deep learning and quantum-inspired
neural network to improve the accuracy of the 24-hour ahead wind
speed forecasting. Two aspects of quantum-inspired computing are used.
These are (i) a Quantum-Inspired Neural Network (QINN) incorporating
deep-learning networks and (ii) a variant of particle swarm optimization
(PSO), called quantum PSO (QPSO), which is used to optimize the
hybrid deep learning (CNN in conjunction with LSTM) and QINN. The
contributions of this paper can be summarized as follows.
1) A novel hybrid deep-learning and QINN is presented to perform 24-
hour-ahead wind speed forecasting. The deep-learning network
consists of parallel CNNs cascading with LSTM. The parallel CNNs
extract the wind speed features from the spatiotemporal data, while
the LSTM interprets those features.
2) Historical geographic (spatial) and temporal data from three ancil­
lary locations and one target location are used to generate the 2D
dataset used in the proposed method, which does not require addi­
tional signal pre-processing.
3) To determine the number of dimensions of the 2D data, a maximum
cross-correlation analysis is performed to account for the maximum
time lag of ancillary locations to be used as inputs with respect to the
target location.
4) The QPSO is used to determine the structural parameters and
hyperparameters of the CNN, LSTM, and QINN simultaneously. This
QPSO keeps the swarm particles from converging prematurely and
becoming trapped at local optima.
5) The proposed method introduces a novel approach by replacing the
traditional fully-connected layer in a CNN with a QINN, leveraging
complex-number weights to enhance accuracy and expand the search
dimensionality of the neural network. This innovative technique, to
the best of the authors’ knowledge, marks the first application of a
QINN in 24-hour-ahead forecasting, surpassing the performance of
the conventional fully-connected layer with real-number weights.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides the theoretical
background of the CNN, LSTM, PSO, and quantum computing. Section 3
elucidates the proposed method with the QPSO, QINN, and network
architecture. Section 4 presents comparative results that are obtained
using the proposed method and the methods in the literature. Section 5
draws conclusions.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Multi-Step spatiotemporal forecasting
Multi-step spatiotemporal forecasting presents a complex computa­
tional challenge that has garnered significant academic interest in recent
times. This specialized forecasting approach is primarily focused on
accurately predicting future states of variables over various spatial lo­
cations and time periods. It takes into careful consideration the intricate
spatial and temporal dependencies within the data. This forecasting
technique has found applications across a wide spectrum of fields,
including but not limited to its use in forecasting sea temperatures (Kim
et al., 2023), predicting traffic patterns (Ta et al., 2022), and estimating
renewable energy generation (Chai et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020).
This paper utilizes the multi-horizon spatiotemporal forecasting
framework to improve the accuracy of wind speed predictions. The
methodology presented in this paper delves into the complexities of this
forecasting approach with the goal of enhancing the precision and
dependability of wind speed forecasts. This contributes to the reliability
of forecasting models used in the wind energy sector and related fields.
In this study, historical data from specific locations in China, the
Philippines, and Taiwan are utilized to forecast wind speeds 24 h ahead
at a target wind farm in Taiwan.
Y.-Y. Hong et al.
2.2. Convolutional neural network (CNN)
A typical convolutional neural network comprises of the input layer,
the convolution layer, the pooling layer, and the fully connected (FC)
layer. The original input data are pre-processed into a one-dimensional
or multi-dimensional matrix in the forms of the input. The convolution
operation is used to construct feature maps of input data (Wang et al.,
2020).
The number of feature maps is determined by the number of
convolution kernels, while the size of the feature maps is determined by
the size of the convolution kernels. The value at position (p,q) in the
feature map is calculated using Eq. (1):
(
∑
Mr ∑ Mc
) providing the ability to control each gate. The special symbol “⊙” in­
fmpq = σ w(p− r)(q− c) ζcr + bpq
r=1 c=1
{ 2.4. Particle swarm optimization (PSO)
1 ≤ p ≤ Mr + Nr
subject to (1)
1 ≤ q ≤ Mc + Nc
where ζcr is an element of the input matrix of Mr × Mc; wpq is the weight
element of the convolution kernel of size Nr × Nc; bpq is a bias, and σ is an
activation function, which is typically a ReLU or sigmoid function.
The average/maximum pooling layer reduces the number of pa­
rameters of the network and prevents overfitting during model training.
The average/maximum of the elements in the feature map is calculated
using average/maximum pooling.
The dropout layer, which prevents overfitting, randomly sets the
input units to zero at a frequency of “Rate” in each step throughout the
training phase. Inputs that are not set to zero are scaled up by 1− 1Rate so
that the sum of all inputs remains constant.
In this paper, a combined convolutional layer and an average pooling
layer are defined as a convolutional neural network. The FC layer is
replaced by the LSTM and QINN.
2.3. Long Short-Term memory (LSTM)
LSTM is an extended version of recurrent neural network (RNN) and
has three gates, which are input, output, and forget. The forget gate
regulates the flow of data by adjusting the data threshold between
reservation and oblivion. Since the hidden layer of the RNN has only one
state, gradient disappearance and gradient explosion are serious prob­
lems. LSTM adds the structure of the cell state to the basic RNN, enabling
long-term preservation of the cell state and supporting the powerful
memory function of the LSTM network. LSTMs have been shown to be
effective for forecasting a variety of time series data, including elec­
tricity demand, stock prices, and weather patterns. (Hossain and Mah­
mood, 2020; Lu et al., 2023). Let Wf , Wi , WC and Wo be the weight
matrices, and bf , bi , bC and bo be the bias vectors. Let t be the time step.
The basic formulas for an LSTM are as follows.
( )
ft = σ Wf • [ht− 1 , xt ] + bf (2)
it = σ(Wi • [ht− 1 , xt ] + bi ) (3)
̃ t = tanh(WC • [ht− 1 , xt ] + bC )
C (4)
̃t
Ct = ft ⊙ Ct− 1 + it ⊙ C (5)
ot = σ(Wo [ht− 1 , xt ] + bo ) (6)
ht = ot ⊙ tanh(Ct ) (7)
Specifically, Eq. (2) indicates that the forget gate controls the amount of
history flows that is included the current history. ft is the result that is
applied to the forget gate; xt is the current input vector, ht is the hidden
vector which stores current outputs in a short-term memory.
3
Expert Systems With Applications 241 (2024) 122645
Equations (3) and (4) involve determining what new information
will be stored in the cell state. First, it determines which values are to be
updated by using a sigmoid function in Eq. (3). Then, the tanh function
generates a vector of new values, C ̃ t , in Eq. (4). To update the old cell
state, Ct-1, into the new cell state, Eq. (5) is applied to yield a value that is
stored in long-term memory, Ct.
A sigmoid layer determines which parts of the cell state will be
output as described by Eq. (6). Then the tanh function shifts the values of
cell state from − 1 to 1, and the output is again multiplied to yield a
sigmoid in Eq. (7). The symbol ot is the result that is applied to the
output gate. The forget gate, input gate, and output gate all follow the
sigmoid function, which yields a value between zero and one, effectively
dicates element-wise multiplication.
Kennedy and Eberhat first proposed PSO in 1995. Owing to its ease of
implementation and fewer controls compared to other optimization al­
gorithms, the PSO algorithm has attracted the attention of many aca­
demics over the past decade. The sociological behavior of flocks of birds
and schools of fish inspired the PSO algorithm (Kennedy and Eberhart,
1995; Dai et al., 2018).
The position vector and velocity vector of the i th particle in the
search space can be expressed as Xi and Vi , respectively. In the kth
iteration of the PSO algorithm, the particle velocity and position are
given as follows (Kennedy and Eberhart, 1995; Dai et al., 2018).
( )
Vi (k + 1) = ωVi (k) + ϛ1 r1 (Pi − Xi (k) ) + ϛ2 r2 Pg − Xi (k) (8)
Xi (k + 1) = Xi (k) + Vi (k + 1) (9)
where ω is the inertia weight, ϛ1 and ϛ2 are the self-learning coefficient
and global learning coefficient of the ith particle, respectively; r1 and r2
are random numbers within [0,1]; Pi is the best known position of the ith
particle, and Pg is the best known position of the swarm. The swarm is
comprised of positions of the individual particles.
In this paper, the elements of Xi are the unknown parameters and
hyperparameters of the proposed model.
2.5. Quantum computing
Quantum computing is based on quantum mechanical postulates and
properties (such as qubits, interference, superposition, and entangle­
ment) for information processing. Quantum computing enables the
solving of complicated problems faster than can be achieved using
traditional computing (Nielsen and Chuang, 2011; Lou and Cong, 2011).
2.5.1. Qubits
A qubit is a tiny unit that is used to process information in a quantum
computer; it is analogous to a bit in classical computing. A qubit can also
be in one state, zero state, or both states at the same time, which is a
phenomenon known as linear superposition. Qubits can be realized
using a variety of physical systems, including photons with two polari­
zations, nuclear spins in magnetic fields, and electrons in ground and
excited states. In quantum mechanics, the developments of closed sys­
tems fulfill the Schrödinger equation:
iℏ|ψ̇ 〉 = H|ψ 〉 (10)
where the state function |ψ 〉 is equivalent to the either of the states |0〉
and |1〉 which are the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian system. The pure
state of a single qubit may be represented as follows using the principles
of superposition of quantum states:
|ψ 〉 = α|0〉 + β|1〉 (11)
Y.-Y. Hong et al. Expert Systems With Applications 241 (2024) 122645

when α and β are complex eigenstate coefficients and the squares of their where the δ enables the flipping of the phase information. The function
absolute values represent the probability of matching eigenstates under
f(x) can be expressed as eix , where the argument of f(x) is equal to − θ
measurements. They satisfy probability completeness:
when δ = 0 and 2π − θ when δ = 1.
‖α‖2 + ‖β‖2 = 1 (12)
3. Proposed method

3.1. Determination of time lag using Cross-Correlation analysis

Thus, Eq. (11) can be modified to be
As well as the time-series at the target location (the offshore wind
( ) farm Fuhai near Taiwan, denoted as L1 in Table 1), wind speeds at
|ψ 〉 = e iφ iζ
cosθ|0〉 + e sinθ|1〉 (13)
multiple wind farms (at locations L2, L3 and L4 in Table 1) are used to
provide spatial information. The selection of L2, L3 and L4 is based on
Since the global phase factor φ has no discernible effect on the compu­
the correlation values of the wind speed data and also the distance be­
tation of state function, Eq. (13) has an analogous form:
tween the target wind farm and L2, L3 and L4. Fig. 2 illustrates the
|ψ 〉 = cosθ|0〉 + eiζ sinθ|1〉 (14) spatial distribution of these specific locations.
Most of the wind farms near Fuhai have few wind turbines or low
where θ and ζ define a point on a unitary three-dimensional Bloch generation capacity. Only three other wind farms are considered.
sphere, as shown in Fig. 1. Table 1 provides information on the target and three others, including
the number of turbines and MW capacity of each (Wind Energy Data­
2.5.2. Quantum rotation gate base, 2022). Table 2 specifies wind speed statistics for the four locations
The logic function in quantum computation can be implemented by for one year.
applying a sequence of uniform transformations to the qubit states, the To study cross-correlation between the target and ancillary wind
effect of which is identical to that of the logic gate. Therefore, quantum speeds, Pearson’s rank-order correlation, which yields the degree and
services that involve logical changes at a certain interval of states are direction of association between two rank-order variables, is used. Since
called quantum gates and are the basis for performing quantum calcu­ the wind farms are located over a large region, time lags or delays
lations. A single rotation gate is defined by Eq. (15). The rotation can be (denoted as λ) must be considered in the cross-correlation study
visualized as in Fig. 1. (Bechrakis and Sparis, 2004).
[ ] For example, if both time-series S1(η) and S2(η-λ) include ℵ scalar
cosθ − sinθ
Ry (θ) = (15) observations (η = 1, 2, …, ℵ), then the correlation coefficient ρ(λ) be­
sinθ cosθ
tween S1(η) and S2(η-λ) is given by Eq. (17), where μ1 and μ2 are the
means of S1(η) and S2(η-λ), respectively.
2.5.3. Quantum-Inspired CNOT (Controlled NOT) gate
∑ℵ
This gate is a conditional gate that applies an X-gate on the second η=1 (S1 (η) − μ1 )(S2 (η − λ) − μ2 )
qubit (target) if the first qubit (control) is in state |1〉. A quantum- ρ(λ) = ∑√ ̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ (17)
ℵ 2 ∑ℵ 2
η=1 (S1 (η) − μ1 ) η=1 (S2 (η − λ) − μ2 )
inspired CNOT gate is represented by Eq. (16).
(π ) {
cosθ − isinθ (δ = 0) Assume that the wind speed time-series at L1 is S1(η) and that at L2,
f δ− θ = (16) L3 or L4 is S2(η-λ). The initial λ may be set to 25 (beginning the day
2 sinθ + icosθ (δ = 1)
following the target hours) and increased by one repeatedly to 97 (the
end of the fourth day). The maximum time lag for L2, L3 or L4 with
respect to L1 is the maximum of the λs that corresponds to the maximum
of ρ(λ) at L2, L3 and L4 with respect to L1. This process is called
maximum cross-correlation analysis in this paper. This maximum time
lag is set to the number of rows of 2D spatiotemporal dimensional data
(the number of columns is fixed at four because four locations are
considered).

3.2. Wind speed statistics of Fuhai and Cross-Correlation

Historical wind speeds at four locations were considered. Hourly

wind speeds (m/s) were measured from May 1, 2017, to April 30, 2018,
yielding a total of 8760 data points per location. Taiwan has four distinct
seasons - winter, spring, summer, and autumn. The dataset is stratified
into four distinct seasonal partitions. Subsequently, each seasonal subset
undergoes a process of partitioning into training and testing subsets,
adhering to an 80–20 split ratio, where 80 % of the data is allocated for
training and validation purposes, while the remaining 20 % is reserved
for testing.

Table 1
Target site and three other sites.
Names (label) Locations No. of Turbines Power (MW)

Fuhai, Taiwan (L1) (24.03◦ ,120.25◦ ) 30 120.0

Yueshan, China (L2) (22.43◦ ,112.51◦ ) 128 76.8
Burgos, Philippines (L3) (18.53◦ , 120.64◦ ) 29 87.0
Kuochangshan, China (L4) (28.81◦ ,120.93◦ ) 35 21.3
Fig. 1. Qubit on Bloch sphere.

4
Y.-Y. Hong et al. Expert Systems With Applications 241 (2024) 122645

Table 3
Characteristics of wind speed in Fuhai, Taiwan.
Season Mean (m/ Standard deviation Maximum (m/ Minimum (m/
s) (m/s) s) s)

Winter 13.01 4.57 27.08 0.12

Spring 8.88 5.48 25.47 0.25
Summer 5.55 3.15 20.28 0.12
Autumn 7.29 5.19 25.47 0.12

Table 4
Time lag (h) obtained from maximum cross-correlations among locations.
Season L1 L2 L3 L4

Winter 25 25 25 71
Spring 25 25 25 70
Summer 25 95 25 47
Fall 25 45 97 47

deep learning and quantum model generates next 24 wind speeds.

Therefore, for each season, the maximum cross-correlation values with
the largest time lag are used to obtain the time lag for the proposed
method. The time lag varies by location and time of year because the
Fig. 2. Target wind farm L1 and wind farms at three ancillary locations L2 wind direction varies with locations and times of year. In summary, the
~ L4. time lags in the winter, spring, summer and autumn are 71, 70, 95 and
97 h, and the numbers of dimensions of the 2D spatiotemporal data are
71 × 4, 70 × 4, 95 × 4 and 97 × 4, respectively. Specifically, for the
Table 2 winter, the inputs of the proposed hybrid deep learning and quantum
Wind statistics of target site and three other sites.
model are wind speeds at t-71, t-70, …, t at L1 ~ L4 while the outputs are
Names (label) Mean Standard Maximum Minimum wind speeds at t + 1, t + 2, …, t + 24 at L1.
(m/s) deviation (m/s) (m/s)
(m/s)
3.3. Quantum particle swarm optimization (QPSO)
Fuhai, Taiwan (L1) 8.68 4.68 27.08 0.12
Yueshan, China (L2) 3.16 1.85 19.74 0.18
QPSO improves upon the standard PSO. The dynamic behavior of the
Burgos, Philippines 6.92 4.04 25.84 0.18
(L3) individual particle in QPSO differs significantly from that of an indi­
Kuochangshan, 2.02 5.78 8.24 0 vidual particle in conventional PSO due to the presence of uncertainty,
China (L4) primarily associated with particle movement rather than particle posi­
tion (Wang et al., 2008; Sun et al., 2004). Let the position of the ith
particle Xi = [χ i1 , χ i2 , ⋯, χ id , ⋯, χ iD ]. The best known position of the ith
The histogram in Fig. 3 shows the sampled wind speeds at the target
particle Pi = [pi1 , pi2 , ⋯, pid , ⋯, piD ] and the best known position of the
wind farm throughout the winter season. Table 3 shows the wind speed
swarm Pg = [pg1 , pg2 , ⋯, pgd ⋯, pgD ] r1 , r2 and r3 are three random
characteristics at the target wind farm. They suggest that the Fuhai
numbers that are sampled in the range of [0,1] for each particle
offshore wind farm has high potential for power generation owing to its
movement.
high mean wind speed value per season.
The dth element of particle Xi in QPSO moves in a D-dimensional
The cross-correlation analysis involves two locations. The target
space following the iterative equation,
location L1 (Fuhai) is compared individually to L2 (Yueshan, China), L3
( )
(Burgos, Philippines), and L4 (Kuocangshan, China). Table 4 shows the 1
results of the cross-correlation analysis to determine the best time lags χ id (k + 1) = pd ± L⋅ln (18)
r3
(λ) for the 2D spatiotemporal data. The value of λ yields the number of
rows in the 2D spatiotemporal data while the number of columns is fixed where
at four.
1
A time lag that exceeds 24 is preferred because the proposed hybrid L= (19)
g⋅|χ id (k) − pd |

r1 pid + r2 pgd
pd = (20)
r1 + r2
√̅̅̅
where g is a constant and g ≥ ln 2. If r3 > 0.5, then a “plus” sign is used
in Eq. (18); else, a “minus” sign is used (Wang et al., 2008; Sun et al.,
2004).
QPSO is as a powerful optimization method, notably employed for
the determination of structural parameters and hyperparameters of the
proposed neural network architectures, encompassing CNN, LSTM, and
QINN. QPSO holds several distinct advantages (Fallahi and Taghadosi,
2022):

Fig. 3. Histogram of wind speeds in winter at target wind farm.

5
Y.-Y. Hong et al.
1) QPSO can search intricate, high-dimensional, and non-linear
parameter spaces, such as multiple layers, units, and hyper­
parameters in complex configurations of neural networks.
2) QPSO integrates quantum mechanics with swarm intelligence,
achieving a balance between the exploration of diverse configura­
tions and the exploitation of promising ones. This facilitates the
discovery of optimal settings for neural network designs.
3.4. Quantum-Inspired neural network (QINN)
A QINN is based on the two concepts of quantum computing and
artificial neural networks (Shi et al., 2022). Fig. 4 shows the proposed
quantum-inspired network.
3.4.1. Input neurons of QINN
The input to this network is a complex number that represents the
eigenstate coefficients in Eq. (11). All neurons in the first layer include a
function that multiplies 2π to the input. A 2π pulse sends |0〉→|0〉+i|1〉
√̅̅ to the
2
input layer. In this layer, the input scalar numbers xq1, xq2, …, xqM are
rescaled into the range [0, 1], and multiplies by π/2 to yield the phase of
the complex input in the range [0, π/2].
An arbitrary one-qubit state can be expressed as Eq. (11) based on the
fundamental quantum principle of state superposition. The revised
equation for a qubit state is defined in Eq. (14).
Phase factors are ignored in Eq. (14) and the magnitude information
is incorporated as a complex number, yielding a qubit-inspired repre­
sentation of data that is similar to Euler’s formula:
f (θ) = eiθ = cosθ + isinθ (21)
Euler’s formula provides the refined qubit state vector
[ ]
cosθ
|ψ 〉 = cosθ|0〉 + eiϕ sinθ|1〉 = iϕ (22)
e sinθ
A single qubit state is known to correspond to a point on the surface
of a Bloch sphere with coordinates (θ, φ). The evolution of a single qubit
state can be modeled as a vector rotation on the Bloch sphere. In this
case, Eq. (21) corresponds to a ring on the surface of a Bloch sphere; data
that are obtained using Eq. (21) correspond to a rotation in the direction
of latitude. Thus, the data in Eq. (21) can be processed in a manner that
is comparable to quantum state evolution. Specifically,
U⋅f (θ0 ) = U⋅(cosθ0 + isinθ0 ) = cos(θ + θ0 ) + isin(θ + θ0 ) (23)
where U = eiθ and f(θ0 ) represents another complex number. Then this
operation yields ei(θ+θ0 ) . This operation describes the transformation of
data points on the surface of a Bloch sphere. Through the combined
rotations represented by U and f(θ0 ), a new data point emerges on the
Bloch sphere, indicating the altered state of the data after successive
transformations. This formula encapsulates the essence of quantum-
inspired data evolution (Shi et al., 2022).
Fig. 4. Quantum-inspired neural network.
6
Expert Systems With Applications 241 (2024) 122645
3.4.2. Hidden neurons of QINN
The hidden layer is a rotation layer implemented by CNOT gates. The
CNOT gate R(θ) is defined as follows:
(π ) {
cosθ − isinθ (δ = 0)
R(θ) = f δ − θ = (24)
2 sinθ + icosθ (δ = 1)
In Eq. (24), the parameter δ plays a pivotal role in the transformation
process. Specifically, when δ is set to 0, the input data undergo a
transformation where their magnitudes remain unaltered, and the phase
information is effectively neutralized. In contrast, when δ equals 1, a
significant alteration occurs: the real and imaginary components of the
input data are interchanged, mirroring a bitwise operation akin to the
flipping mechanism elucidated in Eq. (13). It is worth emphasizing that
the assignment of δ is not deterministic but rather stochastic, with its
value for each hidden neuron being chosen randomly. This deliberate
randomness introduces a crucial element of exploration within the
model. By allowing δ to vary unpredictably, the model gains the capacity
to probe diverse transformations, enabling it to decipher intricate pat­
terns within the data. This stochasticity serves as a strategic tool,
empowering the model to delve into multifaceted data nuances, ulti­
mately enhancing its ability to discern and learn intricate, non-linear
patterns.
Let the numbers of input and hidden neurons be M and N,
respctively, m = 1, 2, …, M and n = 1, 2, …, N. Eq. (25) represents the
complex output of a hidden neuron:
∑
M
Hn = R(θ) eiθm , n = 1, ⋯, N (25)
m=1
3.4.3. Output neurons of QINN
Let the symbol o and O represent index of the output neuron and total
number of neurons or units in the complex dense layer, respectively. The
weights {β1,1 , ..., βn,o , ⋯, βN,O } are assumed to have real values because
they are easier to use in the commonly used machine learning frame­
work. Complex-valued networks have greater representation capacity.
The complex dense layer (with neurons CD1, CD2, … in Fig. 4) processes
the complex output of Eq. (25), generating the output yo :
∑
N
( )
yo = f βn,o Hn − f (bo ) (26)
n=1
where bias b is also a real number and o is the index of the output
neuron, o = 1, 2, …, O. The computation in Eq. (26) is similar to that of a
( )
classical neuron of a neural network but the weights f βn,o and bias
f(bo ) are complex numbers, which are associated with Eq. (21). Eq. (27)
defines the final output of a neuron:
output = |Im(yo ) |2 (27)
where Im(yo ) represents the imaginary part of the complex number yo .
3.5. Architecture for proposed method and QPSO search space
The block diagrams in Fig. 5 present the architecture for the pro­
posed method. The input data are prepared as four columns (corre­
sponding to four locations) of two-dimensional data, with a time lag (λ)
that is determined by maximum cross-correlation analysis.
Fig. 5 presents an example of the proposed model for the spring. The
three CNN layers in parallel, associated with average pooling layers, are
connected to an LSTM. The QINN, which consists of a rotation (hidden)
layer and a complex dense layer, is cascaded to the LSTM. Several
possible architectures are available for the CNN layer: (a) one CNN
layer, (b) two CNN layers, (c) two CNN layers connected in parallel, (d)
three CNN layers, and (e) three CNN layers connected in parallel. Any
one of these options is cascaded to the LSTM and the QINN, as deter­
mined by QPSO.
Y.-Y. Hong et al. Expert Systems With Applications 241 (2024) 122645

Fig. 5. Block diagram of the proposed method for spring season.

The proposed method involves two iterative loops. QPSO optimizes used.
the architecture of the proposed hybrid deep learning with QINN, while
the ADAM optimizer tunes the weights and biases. ADAM, based on
4.1. Performance indices
adaptive estimates of lower-order moments, is an algorithm for first-
order gradient-based optimization to minimize an objective function.
Three performance indices are obtained using various seasonal data
QPSO is used to optimize the architecture, number of kernels, kernel size
and trials; they are the Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute
and dropout value of CNN, the number of output units in LSTM, and the
Error (MAE), and R-Squared (R2). Let y, ̂ y and y be the forecasted values,
parameters of the QINN. An output of the QINN consists of 24 nodes that
the mean of the forecasted values and the actual values, respectively. Let
correspond to the forecasted wind speeds for the next 24 h.
K be the number of studied statistical data points, κ=1, 2, …, K. The
Table 5 presents a list of hyperparameters and parameters that can be
formulas for RMSE, MAE and R2 are given as follows.
used as elements in a particle, along with their respective limits. Filters 1
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
to 3 are allocated to three convolution layers, respectively, and they are √
√1 ∑ K
dependent on the structures mentioned earlier. The variables filter RMSE = √ (̂y κ − yκ )2 (28)
lengths 1 to 3 represent the kernel size, which specifies the height and K κ=1
width of the 2D convolution window. Dropout values are presented in
floating-point format, rounded to two decimal places. The LSTM unit 1 ∑K
MAE = y κ − yκ |
|̂ (29)
refers to the number of inner cells within the LSTM. The two QINN layers K κ=1
consist of the rotation layer and the complex dense layer, respectively.
The number of gates or units per layer in the QINN is optimized through SSE
R2 = 1 − (30)
the use of QPSO. The parameters for the neural architecture are deter­ SST
mined by QPSO.
∑ ∑
where SSE = y − y)2 and SST =
(̂ (y − y)2 .
4. Simulation results and discussions
4.2. PSO Comparison results
The proposed method was implemented in Python using the Keras
package with TensorFlow as the backend. A workstation that was used As mentioned in the preceding section, the proposed method in­
to run the simulations had an Ubuntu 18 operating system with an Intel volves two iterative loops. The outer loop uses QPSO to optimize the
Core i7-11700 processor at 2.40 GHz and 47.0 GB of RAM. Two graphics architecture, number of kernels, kernel size and dropout value of the
cards (NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti) with 10 GB of RAM each were CNN, number of output units in the LSTM, and parameters of the QINN.
This method finds the optimal solution using agents, known as particles,
Table 5 whose orbits are modified by using a stochastic and deterministic
Hyperparameters/parameters to be optimized and their limits. component. The second optimizer (inner loop) is the ADAM, which
Parameters Limits optimizes weights and biases.
Structure (a, b, c, d, e)
The performances of the basic PSO (BPSO) (Kennedy and Eberhart,
Filter 1 1, 2, …, 5 1995) and two PSO variants (Chaos PSO (CPSO) (Song et al., 2007) and
Filter 2 1, 2, …, 5 QPSO (Sun et al., 2004)) are compared by running the aforementioned
Filter 3 1, 2, …, 5 outer loop optimization. Each run has 50 iterations and MAE is used as a
Filter Length 1 1 × 1, 2 × 2, …, 5 × 5
fitness function. For all seasons, the number of particles is 35.
Filter Length 2 1 × 1, 2 × 2, …, 5 × 5
Filter Length 3 1 × 1, 2 × 2, …, 5 × 5 Tables 6 to 9 show the optimal hyperparameters/parameters that are
Dropout 0 ~ 0.50 obtained using three PSO algorithms for the four seasons. QPSO yields
LSTM Units 100, 101, …, 500 the lowest MAE, which is the fitness function of three PSO algorithms.
No. of gates in QINN Layer 1 100, 101, …, 500 Based on the results presented in these tables, QPSO dynamically adapts
No. of gates in QINN Layer 2 100, 101, …, 500
its hyperparameters and parameters for different seasons in order to

7
Y.-Y. Hong et al. Expert Systems With Applications 241 (2024) 122645

Table 6 seasons, showcasing its adaptability and effectiveness in optimizing

Optimal hyperparameters/parameters for winter season. network architectures for seasonal data.
Parameters BPSO CPSO QPSO Figs. 6-9 display the iteration performances of three PSOs for each
season. QPSO consistently converges to the lowest MAE and has been
Structure c e e
Filter 1 4 3 1 proven to be the most effective optimization method for addressing the
Filter 2 4 5 5 specified problem. Notably, during the summer and autumn seasons,
Filter 3 – 4 1 while CPSO and QPSO exhibit very similar MAE values, QPSO demon­
Filter Length 1 5×5 3×3 5×5 strates a faster convergence rate than CPSO. This accelerated conver­
Filter Length 2 4×4 5×5 5×5
Filter Length 3 – 5×5 5×5
gence pattern further confirms the superior performance of QPSO when
Dropout 0.47 0.50 0.41 compared to the other two PSO algorithms.
LSTM Units 427 500 419
QINN Layer 1 354 498 184
QINN Layer 2 373 117 264 4.3. Comparison of results
MAE 0.0286 0.0276 0.0275

In this section, simulation results that are obtained by the proposed

method are compared with those obtained using six other methods and
Table 7 other benchmark models. Specifically, XGBoost (Ahmadi et al., 2020),
Optimal hyperparameters/parameters for spring season.
DBM (Zhang et al., 2015), ARIMA-ANN (Nair et al., 2017), GRNN (Sun
Parameters BPSO CPSO QPSO et al., 2020), LSTM-M (Araya et al., 2020), and CNN-LSTM (Zhu et al.,
Structure e e e 2020) are used for hourly wind speed forecasting. The hyperparameters
Filter 1 3 4 1 and parameters in these models are replicated as documented in the
Filter 2 2 5 5 cited papers. Subsequently, employing the same dataset, these models
Filter 3 5 2 5
undergo a process of reconstruction, enabling the day-ahead spatio­
Filter Length 1 2×2 3×3 4×4
Filter Length 2 4×4 4×4 4×4 temporal wind speed forecasting, which can be used for further
Filter Length 3 3×3 4×4 4×4 comparative analysis. Benchmark models, including Backpropagation
Dropout 0.50 0.50 0.43 Neural Network (BPNN), 1D CNN, Long- and Short-term Time-series
LSTM Units 427 499 295 Network (LSTNET), and Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU), are harnessed for
QINN Layer 1 424 499 192
QINN Layer 2 327 104 149
comparative analysis. The proposed method is also compared with
MAE 0.0305 0.0299 0.0292 equivalent architectures employing a fully connected layer (CNN-LSTM-
FC) and a complex-valued neural network without quantum inspiration
(CNN-LSTM-CVNN) as a subsequent connection after the LSTM layer.
Table 8
These benchmark models constitute conventional tools for assessing
Optimal hyperparameters/parameters for summer season. errors and R2 metrics in the realm of time-series forecasting and
regression problems.
Parameters BPSO CPSO QPSO
Tables 10-13 provide a rigorous assessment of these forecasting
Structure c e e methods for various seasons, comparing their accuracy in terms of MAE,
Filter 1 4 5 5
RMSE, and R2. Lower MAE and RMSE values indicate more accurate
Filter 2 5 3 2
Filter 3 – 1 1 forecasting methods, while higher R2 values indicate better fits to the
Filter Length 1 4×4 5×5 5×5 data.
Filter Length 2 4×4 1×1 4×4 The proposed method achieves lower RMSE and MAE values
Filter Length 3 5×5 1×1
–
compared to the other methods, indicating its superior accuracy in
Dropout 0.5 0.5 0.47
LSTM Units 417 499 187
predicting wind speeds. The proposed method consistently produce R2
QINN Layer 1 285 100 168 values exceeding 0.92 in each season, surpassing the R2 values obtained
QINN Layer 2 271 232 214 by other methods. This indicates a strong correlation between the pre­
MAE 0.0260 0.0248 0.0248 dicted and actual wind speed data, highlighting the reliability and
robustness of the proposed approach. It is evident from the above ob­
servations that the proposed method consistently outperforms the other
Table 9 methods across all seasons.
Optimal hyperparameters/parameters for autumn season. The significant improvement offered by the proposed method
Parameters BPSO CPSO QPSO compared to other methods in the literature is noteworthy. This
Structure c e e
Filter 1 4 5 4
Filter 2 3 4 2
Filter 3 – 5 3
Filter Length 1 5×5 5×5 3×3
Filter Length 2 2×2 5×5 5×5
Filter Length 3 – 3×3 4×4
Dropout 0.5 0.49 0.48
LSTM Units 467 500 479
QINN Layer 1 458 500 370
QINN Layer 2 355 500 344
MAE 0.0227 0.0224 0.0224

optimize neural network models. It demonstrates a tendency to favor

relatively compact filter configurations, dropout rates, and LSTM units
but makes adjustments based on the specific characteristics of each
season. QPSO consistently achieves competitive MAE values across all Fig. 6. Comparison of PSO variants applied to winter dataset.

8
Y.-Y. Hong et al. Expert Systems With Applications 241 (2024) 122645

Table 11
Comparison of results for spring season.
Method MAE RMSE R2

BPNN 0.1665 0.1998 0.0005

1D CNN 0.0741 0.0985 0.7758
LSTNET 0.0351 0.0591 0.9144
GRU 0.0372 0.0626 0.9105
XGBoost 0.1035 0.1401 0.5305
DBM 0.1154 0.1513 0.4968
ARIMA-ANN 0.0402 0.0641 0.9198
GRNN 0.1144 0.1529 0.4594
LSTM-M 0.0327 0.0523 0.9240
CNN-LSTM 0.0420 0.0672 0.9142
CNN-LSTM-FC 0.0381 0.0559 0.9275
CNN-LSTM-CVNN 0.0316 0.0507 0.9401
Proposed Method 0.0292 0.0491 0.9439
Fig. 7. Comparison of PSO variants applied to spring dataset.

Table 12
Comparison of results for summer season.
Method MAE RMSE R2

BPNN 0.1254 0.1564 − 0.0064

1D CNN 0.0617 0.0811 0.7636
LSTNET 0.0315 0.0450 0.8952
GRU 0.0270 0.0421 0.9225
XGBoost 0.0834 0.1125 0.4814
DBM 0.0913 0.1197 0.3949
ARIMA-ANN 0.0415 0.0594 0.8916
GRNN 0.0842 0.1103 0.4861
LSTM-M 0.0309 0.0443 0.9069
CNN-LSTM 0.0251 0.0498 0.8937
CNN-LSTM-FC 0.0299 0.0456 0.9114
CNN-LSTM-CVNN 0.0266 0.0422 0.9236
Proposed Method 0.0248 0.0406 0.9297
Fig. 8. Comparison of PSO variants applied to summer dataset.

Table 13
Comparison of results for autumn season.
Method MAE RMSE R2

BPNN 0.1645 0.2029 0.0125

1D CNN 0.0492 0.0657 0.9021
LSTNET 0.0363 0.0418 0.9105
GRU 0.0234 0.0372 0.9676
XGBoost 0.0719 0.0984 0.7998
DBM 0.0778 0.1045 0.7238
ARIMA-ANN 0.0277 0.0405 0.9166
GRNN 0.0753 0.1018 0.7594
LSTM-M 0.0277 0.0404 0.9364
CNN-LSTM 0.0263 0.0407 0.9045
CNN-LSTM-FC 0.0369 0.0501 0.9378
CNN-LSTM-CVNN 0.0244 0.0359 0.9598
Proposed Method 0.0224 0.0347 0.9708

Fig. 9. Comparison of PSO variants applied to autumn dataset.

indicates that incorporation of QINN elements, particularly the complex
weights among the gates and rotation layer, has a substantial positive
Table 10
Comparison of results for winter season. impact on the accuracy of wind speed forecasts. These complex weights
may capture intricate relationships within the data that conventional
Method MAE RMSE R2
methods or models lacking such elements cannot obtain a high accuracy.
BPNN 0.1358 0.1690 − 0.00002 In the winter season, accurate predictions are often challenging due
1D CNN 0.0614 0.0807 0.7642
to the unique characteristics of cold weather. The QPSO method dem­
LSTNET 0.3654 0.0501 0.9021
GRU 0.0315 0.0486 0.9166 onstrates a commendable RMSE of 0.0431, showcasing its capability to
XGBoost 0.0903 0.1213 0.4897 model complex seasonal dynamics. However, it’s noteworthy that in this
DBM 0.1038 0.1321 0.4076 specific season, the CNN-LSTM method exhibits superior performance,
ARIMA-ANN 0.0360 0.0523 0.9101 achieving an RMSE of 0.0407.
GRNN 0.0993 0.1269 0.4503
The proposed method achieves the highest R2 value, exceeding 0.97,
LSTM-M 0.0359 0.0499 0.9152
CNN-LSTM 0.0315 0.0407 0.8249 during the autumn season. This can be attributed to the frequent
CNN-LSTM-FC 0.0373 0.0520 0.9029 occurrence of intermediate to high wind speeds during this season. This
CNN-LSTM-CVNN 0.0304 0.0449 0.9275 superior forecasting accuracy may stem from the proposed method’s
Proposed Method 0.0274 0.0431 0.9333
capacity to capture intricate patterns and fluctuations in wind speed.
Conversely, the R2 values are at their lowest during the summer

9
Y.-Y. Hong et al.
season. This could be attributed to the presence of typhoons and
generally low wind speeds in summer, which can be challenging to
predict accurately. Nevertheless, it’s noteworthy that the proposed
method continues to outperform other models even during this season,
which further underscores its effectiveness.
The proposed method was compared with equivalent architectures
employing a fully connected layer (CNN-LSTM-FC) and a complex-
valued neural network without quantum inspiration (CNN-LSTM-
CVNN) as a subsequent connection after the LSTM layer. As a result, the
proposed method continues to outperform these two models in terms of
MAE, RMSE, and R2.
In summary, the results presented in Tables 10-13 conclusively
demonstrate that the proposed method, bolstered by the QINN with
complex weights, excels in wind speed forecasting across all seasons. Its
sustained achievement of lower MAE and RMSE values, coupled with
higher R2 values, serves as robust validation of its superiority over other
methods. The integration of QINN significantly contributes to capturing
intricate relationships within the data, thereby establishing it as a
valuable tool for precise wind speed prediction in diverse weather
conditions.
The average training time is 16.47 s for a season using NVIDIA CUDA
cores in an RTX3080 Ti, with a batch size of 2000 and 10,000 iterations.
Utilization rate of the GPU is 70 % on average.
5. Conclusion and future works
This work develops a hybrid deep learning and quantum-inspired
neural network to increase the accuracy of 24-hour-ahead wind speed
forecasting. Essential innovations and findings are summarized as
follows.
(a) The dimensionality of the spatiotemporal 2D data is determined
by both the number of wind farms and the maximum cross-
correlation approach.
(b) QPSO can generally obtain better hyperparameters/parameters
of the proposed hybrid model than BPSO and CPSO algorithms.
QPSO also converges faster and yields a smaller MAE than the
other two PSO algorithms.
(c) Three CNN layers, connected in parallel, are found to be more
effective than a single CNN layer for extracting data features. One
or more filters with fixed filter lengths are required in each CNN
layer.
(d) The integration of LSTM with QINN to replace the traditional
fully-connected layer to produce the next 24 wind speeds has a
promising accuracy. The QINN can obtain a larger subspace of
complex numbers for weight tuning, improving the accuracy of
wind speed prediction.
(e) The proposed hybrid deep learning and quantum-inspired neural
network outperforms XGBoost, DBM, ARIMA-ANN, GRNN,
LSTM-M, CNN-LSTM, CNN-LSTM-FC and CNN-LSTM-CVNN
based on application to wind speed forecasting in four seasons.
Future research will delve into diverse quantum neural network ar­
chitectures, encompassing quantum convolutional neural networks
(QCCNs) and quantum recurrent neural networks (QRNNs), with the
objective of attaining even higher accuracy in predictions. The study
will also investigate the influence of additional meteorological and
environmental variables, such as wind direction and the roughness of
the Earth’s surface, on the accuracy of forecasting. Such a comprehen­
sive consideration will be designed to capture the intricate spatiotem­
poral dynamics that govern wind speed fluctuations.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
10
Expert Systems With Applications 241 (2024) 122645
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
This work is sponsored by National Science and Technology Council,
Taiwan, under the grant NSTC 112-2218-E-008-011 and NSTC 112-
2221-E-033-010-MY3.
References
Ahmadi, A., Nabipour, M., Mohammadi-Ivatloo, B., Amani, A. M., Rho, S., & Piran, M. J.
(2020). Long-term wind power forecasting using tree-based learning algorithms.
IEEE Access, 8, 151511–151522. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.3017442
Araya, I. A., Valle, C., & Allende, H. (2020). A multi-scale model based on the long short-
term memory for Day Ahead hourly wind speed forecasting. Pattern Recognition
Letters, 136, 333–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2019.10.011
Bechrakis, D. A., & Sparis, P. D. (2004). Correlation of wind speed between neighboring
measuring stations. IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, 19(2), 400–406. https://
doi.org/10.1109/tec.2004.827040
Buhan, S., Ozkazanc, Y., & Cadirci, I. (2016). Wind pattern recognition and reference
wind mast data correlations with NWP for improved wind-electric power forecasts.
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 12(3), 991–1004. https://doi.org/
10.1109/tii.2016.2543004
Chai, S., Xu, Z., Jia, Y., & Wong, W. K. (2020). A robust spatiotemporal forecasting
framework for photovoltaic generation. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 11(6),
5370–5382. https://doi.org/10.1109/tsg.2020.300608
Dai, H. P., Chen, D. D., & Zheng, Z. S. (2018). Effects of random values for particle swarm
optimization algorithm. Algorithms, 11(2), 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/a11020023
Fallahi, S., & Taghadosi, M. (2022). Quantum-behaved particle swarm optimization
based on solitons. Scientific Reports, 12, 13977. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-
022-18351-0
Ganjefar, S., & Tofighi, M. (2018). Optimization of quantum-inspired neural network
using memetic algorithm for function approximation and chaotic time series
prediction. Neurocomputing, 291, 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
neucom.2018.02.074
Heng, J., Hong, Y., Hu, J., & Wang, S. (2022). Probabilistic and deterministic wind speed
forecasting based on non-parametric approaches and wind characteristics
information. Applied Energy, 306, Article 118029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2021.118029
Hossain, M. S., & Mahmood, H. (2020). Short-term photovoltaic power forecasting using
an LSTM neural network and synthetic weather forecast. IEEE Access, 8,
172524–172533. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.3024901
Irena. (2019). Future of wind: Deployment, investment, technology, grid integration and socio-
economic aspects (A Global Energy Transformation paper). Abu Dhabi: International
Renewable Energy Agency.
Karakuş, O., Kuruoğlu, E. E., & Altınkaya, M. A. (2017). One-Day ahead wind speed/
power prediction based on polynomial autoregressive model. IET Renewable Power
Generation, 11(11), 1430–1439. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-rpg.2016.0972
Kennedy, J., & Eberhart, R. (1995). Particle swarm optimization. Proceedings of ICNN’95
- International Conference on Neural Networks. https://doi.org/10.1109/
icnn.1995.488968.
Kim, J., Kim, T., Ryu, J.-G., & Kim, J. (2023). Spatiotemporal graph neural network for
multivariate multi-step ahead time-series forecasting of sea temperature. Engineering
Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 126, Article 106854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engappai.2023.106854
Konar, D., Bhattacharyya, S., Gandhi, T. K., & Panigrahi, B. K. (2020). A quantum-
inspired self-supervised network model for automatic segmentation of brain MR
images. Applied Soft Computing, 93, Article 106348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
asoc.2020.106348
Kuranga, C., & Pillay, N. (2022). A comparative study of nonlinear regression and
autoregressive techniques in hybrid with particle swarm optimization for time-series
forecasting. Expert Systems with Applications, 190, Article 116163. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.eswa.2021.116163
Li, Y., Xiao, J., Chen, Y., & Jiao, L. (2019). Evolving deep convolutional neural networks
by quantum behaved particle swarm optimization with binary encoding for image
classification. Neurocomputing, 362, 156–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
neucom.2019.07.026
Liu, G., Chen, W., Chen, H., & Xie, J. (2019). A quantum particle swarm optimization
algorithm with teamwork evolutionary strategy. Mathematical Problems in
Engineering, 2019, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1805198
Lou, Y., & Cong, S. (2011). State transfer control of quantum systems on the Bloch
sphere. Journal of Systems Science and Complexity, 24(3), 506–518. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11424-011-9066-4
Lu, K. D., Wu, Z. G., & Huang, T. (2023). Differential Evolution-based three stage
dynamic Cyber-Attack of cyber-physical power systems. IEEE/ASME Transactions on
Mechatronics, 28(2), 1137–1148. https://doi.org/10.1109/tmech.2022.3214314
Nair, K. R., Vanitha, V., & Jisma, M. (2017). Forecasting of wind speed using ann, Arima
and hybrid models. In 2017 International Conference on Intelligent Computing,
Y.-Y. Hong et al.
Instrumentation and Control Technologies (ICICICT). https://doi.org/10.1109/
icicict1.2017.8342555
Nielsen, M. A., & Chuang, I. L. (2011). Quantum Computation and Quantum Information.
Cambridge University Press.
Patel, O. P., Bharill, N., Tiwari, A., & Prasad, M. (2021). A novel quantum-inspired fuzzy
based neural network for data classification. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in
Computing, 9(2), 1031–1044. https://doi.org/10.1109/tetc.2019.2901272
Shi, S., Wang, Z., Cui, G., Wang, S., Shang, R., Li, W., … Gu, Y. (2022). Quantum-inspired
complex convolutional neural networks. Applied Intelligence, 52(15), 17912–17921.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-022-03525-0
Song, Y., Chen, Z., & Yuan, Z. (2007). New chaotic PSO-based neural network predictive
control for nonlinear process. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 18(2), 595–601.
https://doi.org/10.1109/tnn.2006.890809
Sun, J., Feng, B., & Xu, W. (2004). Particle swarm optimization with particles having
quantum behavior. In Proceedings of the 2004 Congress on Evolutionary Computation
(IEEE Cat. No.04TH8753). https://doi.org/10.1109/cec.2004.1330875
Sun, N., Zhang, S., Peng, T., Zhou, J., & Sun, X. (2020). A composite uncertainty
forecasting model for unstable time series: Application of wind speed and streamflow
forecasting. IEEE Access, 8, 209251–209266. https://doi.org/10.1109/
access.2020.3034127
Ta, X., Liu, Z., Hu, X., Yu, L., Sun, L., & Du, B. (2022). Adaptive spatio-temporal graph
neural network for traffic forecasting. Knowledge-Based Systems, 242, Article 108199.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2022.108199
Wang, X., Chen, J., Wu, Z., & Pan, F. (2008). Modeling of fermentation process based on
QDPSO-SVM. In 2008 Fourth International Conference on Natural Computation.
https://doi.org/10.1109/icnc.2008.176
Wang, Y., Wang, H., Srinivasan, D., & Hu, Q. (2019). Robust functional regression for
wind speed forecasting based on sparse bayesian learning. Renewable Energy, 132,
43–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.07.083
Wang, Y., Zhou, Z., Botterud, A., & Zhang, K. (2018). Optimal wind power uncertainty
intervals for electricity market operation. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 9
(1), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1109/tste.2017.2723907
11
Expert Systems With Applications 241 (2024) 122645
Wang, Y., Zou, R., Liu, F., Zhang, L., & Liu, Q. (2021). A review of wind speed and wind
power forecasting with Deep Neural Networks. Applied Energy, 304, Article 117766.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117766
Wang, Z., Zhang, J., Zhang, Y., Huang, C., & Wang, L. (2020). Short-term wind speed
forecasting based on information of neighboring wind farms. IEEE Access, 8,
16760–16770. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.2966268
Wind energy database. (2022). https://www.thewindpower.net/index.php.
Wu, Y. K., Wu, Y. C., Chang, H. L., & Hong, J. S. (2022). Using extreme wind-speed
probabilistic forecasts to optimize unit scheduling decision. IEEE Transactions on
Sustainable Energy, 13(2), 818–829. https://doi.org/10.1109/tste.2021.3132342
Xu, Q., He, D., Zhang, N., Kang, C., Xia, Q., Bai, J., & Huang, J. (2015). A short-term wind
power forecasting approach with adjustment of numerical weather prediction input
by data mining. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 6(4), 1283–1291. https://
doi.org/10.1109/tste.2015.2429586
Yan, P., Li, L., Jin, M., & Zeng, D. (2021). Quantum probability-inspired graph neural
network for document representation and classification. Neurocomputing, 445,
276–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2021.02.060
Yang, M., Zhang, L., Cui, Y., Zhou, Y., Chen, Y., & Yan, G. (2020). Investigating the wind
power smoothing effect using set pair analysis. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable
Energy, 11(3), 1161–1172. https://doi.org/10.1109/tste.2019.2920255
Zhang, C. Y., Chen, C. L., Gan, M., & Chen, L. (2015). Predictive deep boltzmann machine
for multiperiod wind speed forecasting. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 6(4),
1416–1425. https://doi.org/10.1109/tste.2015.2434387
Zhang, L., Dong, Y., & Wang, J. (2019). Wind speed forecasting using a two-stage
forecasting system with an error correcting and nonlinear ensemble strategy. IEEE
Access, 7, 176000–176023. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2019.2957174
Zhu, Q., Chen, J., Shi, D., Zhu, L., Bai, X., Duan, X., & Liu, Y. (2020). Learning temporal
and spatial correlations jointly: A unified framework for wind speed prediction. IEEE
Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 11(1), 509–523. https://doi.org/10.1109/
tste.2019.2897136