Gaussian Mixture Model for the Estimation of Multiyear Solar Irradiance Probability Density
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing popularity of photovoltaic resources and the connection of solar farms in larger sizes to power distribution networks make it imperative for network designers to assess the variability of available solar resources at a given location. This is normally achieved by attempting to obtain an accurate estimation of the probability density function (pdf) of solar irradiance at the given site. The parametric beta distribution has long been a popular choice in such studies because of its ease of use. However, pdf estimation using parametric functions can lead to inaccurate models and suboptimal decisions being made about the suitability of potential farm site. In this article, a more robust estimation of solar irradiance pdf than that given by the popular beta distribution is obtained by using a Gaussian mixture model (GMM). Using multiyear solar data, the GMM estimate is also compared with a widely used nonparametric kernel density estimation model that employs a common rule-of-thumb bandwidth selection method. Assessments are carried out using a goodness-of-fit test, three error measures, and the coefficient of determination index. Results demonstrate the improved accuracy and robustness of the GMM, which consistently achieves better performance metrics compared with the kernel density estimation (KDE) model and the beta distribution.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".