Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Probabilistic Forecasting Method for Offshore Wind Farm Cluster under Typhoon Conditions: a Score-Based Conditional Diffusion Model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A score-based conditional diffusion model, which adds error samples generated by a mean-reverting stochastic differential equation to a deterministic point forecast, is claimed to be the most accurate probabilistic forecaster for an…

desk verdict Useful two-stage architecture, but the evaluation as written does not establish out-of-sample gains: the test window sits inside the stated data window with no documented temporal split. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.10705 v1 pith:IH2IQGBG submitted 2025-08-14 eess.SY cs.SY

Jinhua He , Zechun Hu This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords probabilisticforecastingoffshorewindpowertyphoonscore-baseddiffusionmodelmean-revertingstochasticdifferentialequationknowledgegraphembeddingconditionalgenerationfarmcluster
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that probabilistic forecasting of offshore wind power during typhoons can be made accurate and reliable by splitting the task into two pieces: a deterministic point forecast and a diffusion model that generates the prediction errors around it. The typhoon's path is first encoded into a vector via a knowledge-graph embedding, and this vector, together with numerical weather predictions, feeds both the deterministic network and the error-sampling denoising network. The error model is built on a mean-reverting stochastic differential equation that turns a complex, non-Gaussian error distribution into a standard Gaussian, so that reverse-time sampling can draw realistic errors conditioned on the typhoon situation. On data from 9 offshore wind farms through Typhoons Maliksi and Yagi, the method is reported to beat autoregressive, variational, and adversarial baselines on CRPS, energy score, and variogram score, and to beat transformer baselines on MAE and RMSE. A grid operator would care because the output is not one number but a full predictive distribution that can feed decisions under extreme weather.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the mean-reverting stochastic differential equation $d\hat{x}=\alpha_t(\mu-\hat{x})dt+\sqrt{2\alpha_t}dw$ with $\mu=0$, whose forward evolution maps the wind-power forecast error distribution into a standard Gaussian and whose reverse-time counterpart generates new error samples conditioned on the typhoon embedding and the deterministic forecast. Around it sits a knowledge-graph embedding of typhoon paths, where triples of a discretized typhoon-center coordinate, a distance-and-intensity relation, and a wind-farm entity are embedded so that the head vector plus the relation vector approximates the tail vector; this supplies exogenous conditioning that lets the model use typhoon records from before the wind farms existed. The conditioning theorem it relies on states that the continuous denoising score-matching loss equals the unconditional loss with observed conditions appended, so no auxiliary classifier is needed. The denoising network fuses the condition into the main module by cross-attention, and a Gaussian Fourier time embedding makes the diffusion time step explicit.

What would settle it

Run a leave-one-typhoon-out experiment: remove Typhoon Maliksi and Typhoon Yagi entirely from the knowledge-graph embedding training, the deterministic network, and the denoising network, then re-estimate MAE, RMSE, CRPS, energy score, and variogram score on those typhoons. If the margins over the transformer and generative baselines shrink or disappear, the published gains reflect data leakage rather than generalization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a score-based conditional diffusion model provides the best-performing deterministic and probabilistic forecasts for an offshore wind farm cluster under typhoon conditions. The innovation is a decomposition: a deterministic network produces the point forecast, a denoising network models the residual between forecast and measured power conditioned on the typhoon embedding and the point forecast, and probabilistic forecasts are reconstructed by adding sampled errors to the point forecast. The conditional error distribution is transported to a standard Gaussian by the mean-reverting SDE $d\hat{x}=\alpha_t(\mu-\hat{x})dt+\sqrt{2\alpha_t}dw$ with $\mu=0$, and sampling uses the matching reverse-time SDE. Typhoon path embeddings supply domain knowledge that the authors show improves the deterministic forecast's tracking of power ramps. The reported evidence is lower MAE and RMSE than three transformer baselines and lower CRPS, energy score, and variogram score than three generative baselines.

Load-bearing premise

The reported advantage presupposes that the knowledge-graph embedding trained on 39 historical typhoons, which includes the two 2024 typhoons used for testing, represents unseen typhoons fairly rather than memorizing the test events, a possibility the paper does not rule out because no typhoon is fully withheld during training.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported gains hold, the same hybrid decomposition could make diffusion-based probabilistic forecasting practical for other rare, high-impact weather events where training data are scarce.
  • The decomposition into a deterministic point forecast plus generated prediction errors reduces the diffusion sampling burden, so probabilistic forecasts can be produced with fewer denoising steps.
  • Typhoon records that predate the construction of the wind farms can be folded into training through the knowledge-graph embedding, enlarging an otherwise tiny dataset.
  • The method yields coherent multivariate samples across the 9-farm cluster, capturing spatial dependencies better than per-farm parametric approaches, as measured by energy and variogram scores.
  • The deterministic network alone already gives a point forecast that beats the transformer baselines, so the method offers an improved point forecast even before uncertainty is added.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural stress test the paper leaves implicit is leave-one-typhoon-out validation: hold out the complete record of one historical typhoon, train the knowledge graph and both networks on the rest, then evaluate on that typhoon; if the advantage persists, the gain is generalization, and if not, it is partly memorization.
  • The knowledge-graph embedding may also be usable as a transferable feature for wind farms outside the studied cluster, since its entities are wind-farm identifiers and typhoon-center coordinates; one could test zero-shot forecasting for a new farm by adding it as a tail entity.
  • The conditioning variable ties the sampled error to the point forecast, so a testable extension would be to condition on numerical-weather-prediction ensemble spread or forecast lead time, which might sharpen the uncertainty estimate at longer horizons.
  • Because the error distribution is sampled rather than assumed parametric, the same architecture could be applied to other renewables under extreme weather, such as solar power during dust storms or heat waves, with no change to the core stochastic differential equation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a score-based conditional diffusion model (SCDM) for probabilistic forecasting of a cluster of offshore wind farms under typhoon conditions. The method has three components: a knowledge graph (TransE) embedding of historical typhoon paths, a deterministic convolutional-attention network that forecasts wind power from NWP data and the typhoon path embedding, and a conditional denoising network that models the deterministic forecast error using a mean-reverting SDE and a reverse-time SDE sampler. Probabilistic forecasts are obtained by adding sampled errors to the deterministic prediction. The authors evaluate the approach on data from 9 offshore wind farms in southern China, covering two 2024 typhoons (Maliksi and Yagi), and report lower MAE/RMSE than Informer, TimeXer, and Autoformer for deterministic forecasts, and lower CRPS/ES/VS than DeepAR, CVAE, and WGAN for probabilistic forecasts.

Significance. If the empirical results were obtained under a sound evaluation protocol, the paper would offer a credible application of score-based diffusion models to a practically relevant problem: probabilistic wind power forecasting under extreme and data-scarce typhoon conditions. The mathematical development (Section III) follows established score-based diffusion theory, and the decomposition into a deterministic forecast plus a diffusion-modeled error distribution is a sensible way to reduce sampling complexity. The authors also make an effort to incorporate domain knowledge through typhoon-path embeddings. However, the reported numerical evidence is undermined by the lack of a clear temporal train/test split and by leakage in the knowledge-graph embeddings, as detailed below, so the central claim of 'outperforming baseline models' is not currently supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV-A, §IV-E, Tables I–III] The test period is not excluded from the training data. The wind power data are stated to span August 6, 2022 to September 30, 2024 (Section IV-A), while the deterministic and probabilistic evaluations are performed on May 10 to September 30, 2024 (Sections IV-E and IV-F), and no sentence in the paper states that this interval is held out from training. Since the test interval is inside the data window used for training the deterministic network and the denoising network, all metrics in Tables I–III may be in-sample. This is especially damaging for the two typhoon events, which are rare and extreme and could be memorized by flexible models. The paper must either explicitly state and justify a temporal split, or re-run the experiments using training data strictly before the test period, before the empirical superiority claim can be accepted.
  2. [§III-A, §IV-A] The knowledge-graph embeddings leak information about the test typhoons. The TransE model is trained on 39 typhoons from 2014 to 2024, which includes the two test typhoons Maliksi and Yagi (both occurred in 2024). The typhoon path embeddings for these events are therefore part of the KG training set, and the same embeddings are fed into both the deterministic and denoising networks during testing. This means the evaluation does not measure performance on unseen typhoon events. A leave-one-typhoon-out or a temporal split of the KG training (e.g., train embeddings only on typhoons before 2024, then apply the trained embedding model to the 2024 typhoon paths) should be used to establish genuine generalization.
  3. [§IV-F, Table III] The probabilistic comparison is not controlled for the deterministic forecast. The proposed method generates probabilistic forecasts by adding sampled errors to the deterministic forecast produced by the authors' deterministic network. The paper does not state whether DeepAR, CVAE, and WGAN are given the same deterministic forecast or the same set of input features. If they are not, the reported CRPS, ES, and VS improvements could be driven by the superior point forecast rather than by the denoising network's error model. To isolate the contribution of the diffusion-based error model, the authors should add an ablation that uses a simple error model (e.g., an empirical Gaussian or a kernel density estimate) on top of the same deterministic forecast, and should specify the conditioning information provided to each probabilistic baseline.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§IV-A] The figure captions for Fig. 5 appear to be inconsistent with the text: the text refers to the power-correlation matrix as Fig. 5(a), while the caption lists the wind-speed correlation as (a) and the power correlation as (b). Please reconcile the caption and the in-text references.
  2. [§IV-F] The abbreviation 'WPCSG' in the last paragraph of Section IV-F is not defined or used elsewhere; please expand or remove it.
  3. [Throughout] The paper contains several OCR-type typographical errors (e.g., 'V AEs' in the introduction, 'T ABLE' in table headings, 'Y agi' in Fig. 8, and 'Y ang' for 'Yang' in one reference). A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  4. [§I] The introduction claims that score-based diffusion models offer 'exact log-likelihood computation'; this is not generally true for score-based SDE models and should be qualified, since likelihoods are typically approximated.
  5. [§IV-E, §IV-F] The evaluation covers only two typhoon events, and no confidence intervals or significance tests are reported for the metric differences. This limitation should be acknowledged and, if possible, supplemented with uncertainty estimates (e.g., bootstrap intervals) to support the comparative claims.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the diffusion losses and reverse SDE follow from standard score-matching theory, and the test-window concern is a data-leakage/correctness issue, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The typhoon-path embedding (Sec. III-A, Eq. 8) is an unsupervised TransE embedding trained on typhoon coordinate/intensity/distance triples; it is an input representation for the forecasting network, not a disguised version of the wind-power forecast target. The deterministic network (Sec. III-B, Eq. 10) is a standard MSE regression from NWP plus the embedding to wind power. The denoising network (Sec. III-C through III-F) uses the mean-reverting SDE (Eq. 15) with mu = 0, whose transition kernel (Eq. 17) is derived in Appendix I, and the final noise-matching loss (Eq. 22) follows from the standard continuous denoising score-matching identity. Theorem 1, which licenses conditioning by adding y to the network input, is cited to external work [23] (Batzolis et al.), not to the authors' own prior papers, so no load-bearing self-citation chain is present. The reconstruction x_s = x_bar + x_hat_s is the paper's explicit modeling decomposition (Eq. 1), not a hidden circular reduction. The only serious concern is empirical: the test window May 10-Sep 30 2024 (Sec. IV-E) lies inside the full data window Aug 6 2022-Sep 30 2024 (Sec. IV-A), and no temporal train/test split is reported, so the reported gains may be contaminated by leakage. That is a data-leakage and generalization-risk issue, not a case of a claimed prediction being equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are all model hyperparameters. The main axioms are standard diffusion theory plus two domain assumptions about the suitability of diffusion for typhoon-conditioned errors and the informativeness of KG embeddings.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha_t schedule = alpha_t = 0.1 + 19.9t
    Chosen by hand; controls the speed of mean reversion in the forward and reverse SDE. Not fitted to data but directly shapes the diffusion process.
  • knowledge graph embedding dimension = 10
    Selected for the TransE embedding; affects the richness of the typhoon path representation.
  • TransE margin gamma = not reported
    Margin hyperparameter in Eq. (8); chosen without reported value or sensitivity analysis.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Score-based diffusion framework (forward and reverse SDE, score matching)
    Background theory from Song et al. 2020, used in Eqs. (4)-(6).
  • standard math Theorem 1 from Batzolis et al. 2021: conditional denoising score matching equivalence
    Borrowed without proof in Section III-C.
  • standard math Itô calculus and the solution of the linear mean-reverting SDE
    Appendix I derives the Gaussian transition kernel.
  • domain assumption Prediction errors under typhoon conditions can be transformed to a standard Gaussian via a mean-reverting SDE with zero mean
    Modeling assumption in Section III-D; not empirically verified with calibration tests.
  • domain assumption Typhoon path knowledge graph embeddings capture information relevant to wind power forecasts
    Core conditioning mechanism, supported only by a single visual example (Fig. 7), no quantitative ablation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probabilistic Forecasting Method for Offshore Wind Farm Cluster under Typhoon Conditions: a Score-Based Conditional Diffusion Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IH2IQGBG

@misc{pith2026250810705,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probabilistic Forecasting Method for Offshore Wind Farm Cluster under Typhoon Conditions: a Score-Based Conditional Diffusion Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IH2IQGBG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.10705}
}
read the original abstract

Offshore wind power (OWP) exhibits significant fluctuations under typhoon conditions, posing substantial challenges to the secure operation of power systems. Accurate forecasting of OWP is therefore essential. However, the inherent scarcity of historical typhoon data and stochasticity of OWP render traditional point forecasting methods particularly difficult and inadequate. To address this challenge and provide grid operators with the comprehensive information necessary for decision-making, this study proposes a score-based conditional diffusion model (SCDM) for probabilistic forecasting of OWP during typhoon events. First, a knowledge graph algorithm is employed to embed historical typhoon paths as vectors. Then, a deterministic network is constructed to predict the wind power under typhoon conditions based on these vector embeddings. Finally, to better characterize prediction errors, a denoising network is developed. At the core of this approach is a mean-reverting stochastic differential equation (SDE), which transforms complex error distributions into a standard Gaussian, enabling the sampling of forecasting errors using a reverse-time SDE. The probabilistic forecasting results are reconstructed by combining deterministic forecasts with sampled errors. The proposed method is evaluated using real-world data from a cluster of 9 offshore wind farms. Results demonstrate that under typhoon conditions, our approach outperforms baseline models for both deterministic and probabilistic metrics, verifying the effectiveness of the approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.10705 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of forward SDE and reverse SDE in score-based diffusion models. III. SCORE-BASED CONDITIONAL DIFFUSION MODELS The aim of this paper is to achieve WPF accurately under typhoon conditions. As shown in Eq. (1), we approach this task by decomposing the predicted power into the sum of the deterministic prediction and the generated prediction error. The entire process is illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/f… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Framework of the SCDM for probabilistic forecasting under typhoon conditions. A. Knowledge graph embedding of typhoon path There is a scarcity of offshore wind power data affected by typhoons, and many typhoons have impacted the regions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Structure of determinist network. C. Conditional denoising estimator (CDE) for generating prediction errors We use denoising networks to model the distribution of prediction errors. Eq. (4) presents the loss function for training an unconditional denoising network. However, direct optimiza￾tion is not feasible, as the ground truth score ∇xt log p(xt) is not accessible. Therefore, a loss function, as presented in Eq.… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Structure of denoising network. The main module is responsible for mapping the prediction error, perturbed by a multiscale perturbation kernel, into Gaussian random noise. Thus, this entire network can also be referred to as a noise prediction network. The main mod￾ule…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Correlation between forecasted wind speed and measured wind power among 9 offshore wind farms(a), Correlation of measured wind power between 9 offshore wind farms(b). B. Baseline Settings To validate the effectiveness of our proposed method, we compare it with three de…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of deterministic prediction results with/without typhoon path embedding (dim=10). E. Performance comparison of deterministic forecasts In this section, we evaluate the prediction accuracy of the deterministic prediction models. We test the models on a datase…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Loss value of the transE training process (dim=10). To further demonstrate the practical utility of our approach, we select a test case from Typhoon ”Maliksi” (2024) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: illustrates the prediction results of each probabilistic prediction model for offshore wind farm #0 during Typhoon ’Yagi’. Each subfigure shows 50 generated samples (gray curves), with the orange curve representing the average of these samples and the blue curve indica…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Heier, Grid integration of wind energy: onshore and offshore conver- sion systems

    S. Heier, Grid integration of wind energy: onshore and offshore conver- sion systems. John Wiley & Sons, 2014. I

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    A bayesian deep learning-based wind power prediction model considering the whole process of blade icing and de-icing,

    X. Liu, J. Liu, J. Liu, Y . Zhao, Z. Yang, and T. Ding, “A bayesian deep learning-based wind power prediction model considering the whole process of blade icing and de-icing,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 2024. I

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Dispatch strategy for the power system with large offshore wind power integration under a typhoon: A two-stage sample robust optimization approach,

    J. He, Z. Hu, Y . Liu, Z. Bao, and Y . Zhu, “Dispatch strategy for the power system with large offshore wind power integration under a typhoon: A two-stage sample robust optimization approach,” IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, pp. 1–13, 2025. I

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Spatio- temporal graph neural network and pattern prediction based ultra-short- term power forecasting of wind farm cluster,

    X. Liu, Y . Zhang, Z. Zhen, F. Xu, F. Wang, and Z. Mi, “Spatio- temporal graph neural network and pattern prediction based ultra-short- term power forecasting of wind farm cluster,” IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 1794–1803, 2023. I

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    A data- driven methodology for probabilistic wind power ramp forecasting,

    M. Cui, J. Zhang, Q. Wang, V . Krishnan, and B.-M. Hodge, “A data- driven methodology for probabilistic wind power ramp forecasting,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1326–1338, 2017. I

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Probabilistic wind power forecasting using optimized deep auto-regressive recurrent neural networks,

    P. Arora, S. M. J. Jalali, S. Ahmadian, B. K. Panigrahi, P. N. Suganthan, and A. Khosravi, “Probabilistic wind power forecasting using optimized deep auto-regressive recurrent neural networks,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 2814–2825, 2022. I

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Forecasted scenarios of regional wind farms based on regular vine copulas,

    Z. Wang, W. Wang, C. Liu, and B. Wang, “Forecasted scenarios of regional wind farms based on regular vine copulas,” Journal of Modern Power Systems and Clean Energy , vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 77–85, 2019. I

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Spatial-temporal wind power probabilistic forecasting based on time-aware graph convolutional network,

    J. Tang, Z. Liu, and J. Hu, “Spatial-temporal wind power probabilistic forecasting based on time-aware graph convolutional network,” IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy , 2024. I

    work page 2024

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    A novel informer-time-series generative adversarial networks for day-ahead scenario generation of wind power,

    L. Ye, Y . Peng, Y . Li, and Z. Li, “A novel informer-time-series generative adversarial networks for day-ahead scenario generation of wind power,” Applied Energy, vol. 364, p. 123182, 2024. I

    2024

  2. [10]

    Continuous and distribution- free probabilistic wind power forecasting: A conditional normalizing flow approach,

    H. Wen, P. Pinson, J. Ma, J. Gu, and Z. Jin, “Continuous and distribution- free probabilistic wind power forecasting: A conditional normalizing flow approach,”IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 2250–2263, 2022. I

    2022

  3. [11]

    Deep generative modelling: A comparative review of vaes, gans, normalizing flows, energy-based and autoregressive models,

    S. Bond-Taylor, A. Leach, Y . Long, and C. G. Willcocks, “Deep generative modelling: A comparative review of vaes, gans, normalizing flows, energy-based and autoregressive models,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , vol. 44, no. 11, pp. 7327– 7347...

    2021

  4. [12]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, “Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 33, pp. 6840– 6851, 2020. I, II-B

    2020

  5. [13]

    Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differ- ential equations,

    Y . Song, J. Sohl-Dickstein, D. P. Kingma, A. Kumar, S. Ermon, and B. Poole, “Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differ- ential equations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456 , 2020. I, III-C

    2011 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Un- derstanding deep learning (still) requires rethinking generalization,

    C. Zhang, S. Bengio, M. Hardt, B. Recht, and O. Vinyals, “Un- derstanding deep learning (still) requires rethinking generalization,” Communications of the ACM , vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 107–115, 2021. I

    2021

  7. [15]

    Towards ef- fective long-term wind power forecasting: A deep conditional generative spatio-temporal approach,

    P. Yi, Z. Bao, F. Huang, J. Wang, J. Peng, and L. Zhang, “Towards ef- fective long-term wind power forecasting: A deep conditional generative spatio-temporal approach,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2024. I

    2024

  8. [16]

    An adaptive approach for probabilistic wind power forecasting based on meta-learning,

    Z. Meng, Y . Guo, and H. Sun, “An adaptive approach for probabilistic wind power forecasting based on meta-learning,” IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 2024. I

    2024

  9. [17]

    Short-term predictions of multiple wind turbine power outputs based on deep neural networks with transfer learning,

    X. Liu, Z. Cao, and Z. Zhang, “Short-term predictions of multiple wind turbine power outputs based on deep neural networks with transfer learning,” Energy, vol. 217, p. 119356, 2021. I

    2021

  10. [18]

    Ultra-short-term wind power subsection forecasting method based on extreme weather,

    G. Z. Yu, L. Lu, B. Tang, S. Y . Wang, and C. Chung, “Ultra-short-term wind power subsection forecasting method based on extreme weather,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 5045–5056,

  11. [19]

    Short-term wind power scenario generation based on conditional latent diffusion models,

    X. Dong, Z. Mao, Y . Sun, and X. Xu, “Short-term wind power scenario generation based on conditional latent diffusion models,” IEEE Trans- actions on Sustainable Energy , vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 1074–1085, 2023. I

    2023

  12. [20]

    Data-driven scenario generation of renewable energy production based on controllable generative adversar- ial networks with interpretability,

    W. Dong, X. Chen, and Q. Yang, “Data-driven scenario generation of renewable energy production based on controllable generative adversar- ial networks with interpretability,” Applied Energy, vol. 308, p. 118387,

  13. [21]

    Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution,

    Y . Song and S. Ermon, “Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 32, 2019. II-B

    2019

  14. [22]

    Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data,

    A. Bordes, N. Usunier, A. Garcia-Duran, J. Weston, and O. Yakhnenko, “Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 26, 2013. III-A

    2013

  15. [23]

    Conditional image generation with score-based diffusion models,

    G. Batzolis, J. Stanczuk, C.-B. Sch ¨onlieb, and C. Etmann, “Conditional image generation with score-based diffusion models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.13606, 2021. III-C

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    International best track archive for climate stewardship (ibtracs) project, version 4.01,

    J. Gahtan, K. R. Knapp, C. J. I. Schreck, H. J. Diamond, J. P. Kossin, and M. C. Kruk, “International best track archive for climate stewardship (ibtracs) project, version 4.01,” NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, 2024, accessed: [2024-11-01]. [Online]. Avail...

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting,

    H. Zhou, S. Zhang, J. Peng, S. Zhang, J. Li, H. Xiong, and W. Zhang, “Informer: Beyond efficient transformer for long sequence time-series forecasting,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intel- ligence, vol. 35, no. 12, 2021, pp. 11 106–11 115. IV-B

    2021

  18. [26]

    Timexer: Empowering transformers for time series forecasting with exogenous variables,

    Y . Wang, H. Wu, J. Dong, G. Qin, H. Zhang, Y . Liu, Y . Qiu, J. Wang, and M. Long, “Timexer: Empowering transformers for time series forecasting with exogenous variables,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.19072,

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    Autoformer: Decomposition transformers with auto-correlation for long-term series forecasting,

    H. Wu, J. Xu, J. Wang, and M. Long, “Autoformer: Decomposition transformers with auto-correlation for long-term series forecasting,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 34, pp. 22 419– 22 430, 2021. IV-B

    2021

  20. [28]

    Deepar: Probabilistic forecasting with autoregressive recurrent networks,

    D. Salinas, V . Flunkert, J. Gasthaus, and T. Januschowski, “Deepar: Probabilistic forecasting with autoregressive recurrent networks,” Inter- national journal of forecasting , vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 1181–1191, 2020. IV-B

    2020

  21. [29]

    Learning structured output represen- tation using deep conditional generative models,

    K. Sohn, H. Lee, and X. Yan, “Learning structured output represen- tation using deep conditional generative models,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 28, 2015. IV-B

    2015

  22. [30]

    Improved training of wasserstein gans,

    I. Gulrajani, F. Ahmed, M. Arjovsky, V . Dumoulin, and A. C. Courville, “Improved training of wasserstein gans,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017. IV-B

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.