A Comparative Study of non-deep Learning, Deep Learning, and Ensemble Learning Methods for Sunspot Number Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Solar activity has significant impacts on human activities and health. One most commonly used measure of solar activity is the sunspot number. This paper compares three important non-deep learning models, four popular deep learning models, and their five ensemble models in forecasting sunspot numbers. In particular, we propose an ensemble model called XGBoost-DL, which uses XGBoost as a two-level nonlinear ensemble method to combine the deep learning models. Our XGBoost-DL achieves the best forecasting performance (RMSE =25.70 and MAE =19.82) in the comparison, outperforming the best non-deep learning model SARIMA (RMSE =54.11 and MAE =45.51), the best deep learning model Informer (RMSE =29.90 and MAE =22.35) and the NASA’s forecast (RMSE =48.38 and MAE =38.45). Our XGBoost-DL forecasts a peak sunspot number of 133.47 in May 2025 for Solar Cycle 25 and 164.62 in November 2035 for Solar Cycle 26, similar to but later than the NASA’s at 137.7 in October 2024 and 161.2 in December 2034. An open-source Python package of our XGBoost-DL for the sunspot number prediction is available at https://github.com/yd1008/ts_ensemble_sunspot.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".