Solar irradiance forecasting using deep recurrent neural networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Solar irradiance prediction has a significant impact on various aspects of power system generation. The predictive models can be deployed to improve the planning and operation of renewable systems and can improve the power purchase process and bring several advantages to the power utilities. The irradiance is affected by several factors, such as clouds and dust, and it becomes challenging for physical models to predict and capture the dynamics. The statistical methods are commonly used to predict the irradiance. These methods include autoregressive moving average, support vector machine, and artificial neural network. Deficiencies and challenges of existing methods include low prediction accuracy, low scalability for big data, and inability to capture long-term dependencies. In this paper, a deep recurrent neural network is used to predict the solar irradiance. Deep recurrent neural network (DRNN) is an artificial neural network with more hidden layers to improve the complexity of the model and enable the extraction of high-level features. The neural network is trained, tested, and validated using real data from the National Resources in Canada. The simulation and experimental results are compared to other methods to illustrate the advantages using the proposed approach.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".