% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Cramer:909688,
author = {Cramer, Eike and Gorjao, Leonardo Rydin and Mitsos,
Alexander and Schafer, Benjamin and Witthaut, Dirk and
Dahmen, Manuel},
title = {{V}alidation methods for energy time series scenarios from
deep generative models},
journal = {IEEE access},
volume = {10},
issn = {2169-3536},
address = {New York, NY},
publisher = {IEEE},
reportid = {FZJ-2022-03341},
pages = {8194 - 8207},
year = {2022},
abstract = {The 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.},
cin = {IEK-STE / IEK-10},
ddc = {621.3},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-STE-20101013 / I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-10-20170217},
pnm = {1112 - Societally Feasible Transformation Pathways
(POF4-111) / 1122 - Design, Operation and Digitalization of
the Future Energy Grids (POF4-112) / HDS LEE - Helmholtz
School for Data Science in Life, Earth and Energy (HDS LEE)
(HDS-LEE-20190612) / HGF-ZT-I-0029 - Helmholtz UQ:
Uncertainty Quantification - from data to reliable knowledge
(HGF-ZT-I-0029)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-1112 / G:(DE-HGF)POF4-1122 /
G:(DE-Juel1)HDS-LEE-20190612 / G:(DE-Ds200)HGF-ZT-I-0029},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000747195700001},
doi = {10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3141875},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/909688},
}