Forecasting of Photovoltaic Power by Means of Non-Linear Auto-Regressive Exogenous Artificial Neural Network and Time Series Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this research paper, a nonlinear autoregressive with exogenous input (NARX) model of the nonlinear system based on neural network and time series analysis is proposed to deal with the one-month forecast of the produced power from photovoltaic modules (PVM). The PVM is a monocrystalline cell with a rated production of 175 watts that is placed at Heliopolis University, Bilbéis city, Egypt. The NARX model is considered powerful enough to emulate the nonlinear dynamic state-space model. It is extensively performed to resolve a variety of problems and is mainly important in complex process control. Moreover, the NARX method is selected because of its quick learning and completion times, as well as high appropriateness, and is distinguished by advantageous dynamics and interference resistance. The neural network (NN) is trained and optimized with three algorithms, the Levenberg–Marquardt Algorithm (NARX-LMA), the Bayesian Regularization Algorithm (NARX-BRA) and the Scaled Conjugate Gradient Algorithm (NARX-SCGA), to attain the best performance. The forecasted results using the NARX method based on the three algorithms are compared with experimentally measured data. The NARX-LMA, NARX-BRA and NARX-SCGA models are validated using statistical criteria. In general, weather conditions have a significant impact on the execution and quality of the results.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".