Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCramer, Eike
dc.contributor.authorRydin Gorjao, Leonardo
dc.contributor.authorMitsos, Alexander
dc.contributor.authorSchäfer, Benjamin
dc.contributor.authorWitthaut, Dirk
dc.contributor.authorDahmen, Manuel
dc.date.accessioned2023-02-20T09:59:48Z
dc.date.available2023-02-20T09:59:48Z
dc.date.created2022-05-19T14:12:56Z
dc.date.issued2022-01-11
dc.identifier.citationIEEE Access. 2022, 10 8194-8207.en_US
dc.identifier.issn2169-3536
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3052254
dc.description.abstractThe design and operation of modern energy systems are heavily influenced by time-dependent and uncertain parameters, e.g., renewable electricity generation, load-demand, and electricity prices. These are typically represented by a set of discrete realizations known as scenarios. A popular scenario generation approach uses deep generative models (DGM) that allow scenario generation without prior assumptions about the data distribution. However, the validation of generated scenarios is difficult, and a comprehensive discussion about appropriate validation methods is currently lacking. To start this discussion, we provide a critical assessment of the currently used validation methods in the energy scenario generation literature. In particular, we assess validation methods based on probability density, auto-correlation, and power spectral density. Furthermore, we propose using the multifractal detrended fluctuation analysis (MFDFA) as an additional validation method for non-trivial features like peaks, bursts, and plateaus. As representative examples, we train generative adversarial networks (GANs), Wasserstein GANs (WGANs), and variational autoencoders (VAEs) on two renewable power generation time series (photovoltaic and wind from Germany in 2013 to 2015) and an intra-day electricity price time series form the European Energy Exchange in 2017 to 2019. We apply the four validation methods to both the historical and the generated data and discuss the interpretation of validation results as well as common mistakes, pitfalls, and limitations of the validation methods. Our assessment shows that no single method sufficiently characterizes a scenario but ideally validation should include multiple methods and be interpreted carefully in the context of scenarios over short time periods.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherInstitute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesIEEE Access;Volume: 10
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleValidation Methods for Energy Time Series Scenarios From Deep Generative Modelsen_US
dc.title.alternativeValidation Methods for Energy Time Series Scenarios From Deep Generative Modelsen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3141875
dc.identifier.cristin2025697
dc.source.journalIEEE Accessen_US
dc.source.volume10en_US
dc.source.issue10en_US
dc.source.pagenumber8194-8207en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal