Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Environmental variables and their impact on WT power output.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Research objectives for enhancing WT power output prediction using ML and DL models.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Density distributions of environmental parameters affecting WT energy output: (a) Temperature at 2m, (b) RH at 2m, (c) DWPT at 2m, (d) Wind speed at 10m, (e) Wind speed at 100m, (f) Wind direction at 10m, (g) Wind direction at 100m, (h) Wind gusts at 10m.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics of environmental variables in the dataset used for WT power prediction.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 4.

Heatmap of correlation matrix among environmental variables and power output.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Overview of ML model selection and training for WT power output prediction.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Table 2.

Summary of ML models: Key parameters, scaling requirements, baseline usage, and training data needs.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 6.

Flowchart of ML methodology for predicting WT power output.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Table 3.

Comparison of DL models used in the study for predicting WT power output.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 7.

DL workflow flowchart for predicting WT power output from environmental variables.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Table 4.

Performance comparison of ML models for predicting WT power output.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 8.

Comparative Actual vs. Predicted Power output by ML model for the first 1000 observations: (a) AdaBoost, (b) LR, (c) SVR, (d) LightGBM, (e) XGBoost, (f) CatBoost, (g) RF, (h) ET.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

Aggregated actual vs. predicted power output across all ML models.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Fig 10.

R2 values for ML models in predicting WT power output.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Fig 11.

MAE values for ML models in WT power prediction.

More »

Fig 11 Expand

Fig 12.

RMSE values for ML models in WT power prediction.

More »

Fig 12 Expand

Table 5.

Performance comparison of DL models for predicting WT power output.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Fig 13.

Training and validation R2 performance of DL models (a) CNN, (b) LSTM, (c) RNN, (d) ANN.

More »

Fig 13 Expand

Fig 14.

Training and validation MAE performance of DL models (a) CNN, (b) LSTM, (c) RNN, (d) ANN.

More »

Fig 14 Expand

Fig 15.

Training and validation loss performance of DL models (a) CNN, (b) LSTM, (c) RNN, (d) ANN.

More »

Fig 15 Expand

Fig 16.

Predicted vs. Actual Power output for DL models on a sample of 1000 data points (a) CNN, (b) LSTM, (c) RNN, (d) ANN.

More »

Fig 16 Expand

Fig 17.

Aggregated actual vs. predicted power output across all DL models.

More »

Fig 17 Expand

Table 6.

Summary of comparative analysis between ML and DL models for predicting WT power output.

More »

Table 6 Expand