Adaptive Neuro‐Fuzzy Inference System integrated with solar zenith angle for forecasting sub‐tropical Photosynthetically Active Radiation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Advocacy for climate mitigation aims to minimize the use of fossil fuel and to support clean energy adaptation. While alternative energies (e.g., biofuels) extracted from feedstock (e.g., micro‐algae) represent a promising role, their production requires reliably modeled photosynthetically active radiation ( PAR ). PAR models predict energy parameters (e.g., algal carbon fixation) to aid in decision‐making at PAR sites. Here, we model very short‐term (5‐min scale), sub‐tropical region's PAR with an Adaptive Neuro‐Fuzzy Inference System model with a Centroid‐Mean ( ANFIS ‐ CM ) trained with a non‐climate input (i.e., only the solar angle, θ Z ). Accuracy is benchmarked against genetic programming ( GP ), M5Tree, Random Forest ( RF ), and multiple linear regression ( MLR ). ANFIS ‐ CM integrates fuzzy and neural network algorithms, whereas GP adopts an evolutionary approach, M5Tree employs binary decision, RF employs a bootstrapped ensemble, and MLR uses statistical tools to link PAR with θ Z . To design the ANFIS ‐ CM model, 5‐min θ Z (01–31 December 2012; 0500H–1900H) for sub‐tropical, Toowoomba are utilized to extract predictive features, and the testing accuracy (i.e., differences between measurements and forecasts) is evaluated with correlation ( r ), root‐mean‐square error ( RMSE ), mean absolute error ( MAE ), Willmott ( WI ), Nash–Sutcliffe ( E NS ), and Legates & McCabes ( E LM ) Index. ANFIS ‐ CM and GP are equivalent for 5‐min forecasts, yielding the lowest RMSE (233.45 and 233.01μ mol m −2 s −1 ) and MAE (186.59 and 186.23 μmol m −2 s −1 ). In contrast, MLR , M5Tree, and RF yields higher RMSE and MAE [( RMSE = 322.25 μmol m −2 s −1 , MAE = 275.32 μmol m −2 s −1 ), ( RMSE = 287.70 μmol m −2 s −1 , MAE = 234.78 μmol m −2 s −1 ), and ( RMSE = 359.91 μmol m −2 s −1 , MAE = 324.52 μmol m −2 s −1 )]. Based on normalized error, ANFIS ‐ CM is considerably superior ( MAE = 17.18% versus 19.78%, 34.37%, 26.39%, and 30.60% for GP , MLR , M5Tree, and RF models, respectively). For hourly forecasts, ANFIS ‐ CM outperforms all other methods ( WI = 0.964 vs. 0.942, 0.955, 0.933 & 0.893, and E LM = 0.741 versus 0.701, 0.728, 0.619 & 0.490 for GP , MLR , M5Tree, and <jats:style
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it