MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319320362 · doi:10.3390/en16031533

Six Days Ahead Forecasting of Energy Production of Small Behind-the-Meter Solar Sites

2023· article· en· W4319320362 on OpenAlexaff
Hugo Bezerra Menezes Leite, Hamidreza Zareipour

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSolar Radiation and Photovoltaics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotovoltaic systemSolar energyBenchmark (surveying)Solar irradianceMetreMeteorologySolar powerEngineeringSimulationComputer scienceEnvironmental sciencePower (physics)Electrical engineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the growing penetration of behind-the-meter (BTM) photovoltaic (PV) installations, accurate solar energy forecasts are required for a reliable economic energy system operation. A new hybrid methodology is proposed in this paper with a sequence of one-step ahead models to accumulate 144 h for a small-scale BTM PV site. Three groups of models with different inputs are developed to cover 6 days of forecasting horizon, with each group trained for each hour of the above zero irradiance. In addition, a novel dataset preselection is proposed, and neighboring solar farms’ power predictions are used as a feature to boost the accuracy of the model. Two techniques are selected: XGBoost and CatBoost. An extensive assessment for 1 year is conducted to evaluate the proposed method. Numerical results highlight that training the models with the previous, current, and 1 month ahead from the previous year referenced by the target month can improve the model’s accuracy. Finally, when solar energy predictions from neighboring solar farms are incorporated, this further increases the overall forecast accuracy. The proposed method is compared with the complete-history persistence ensemble (CH-PeEn) model as a benchmark.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.342
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicSolar Radiation and PhotovoltaicsFrench-language works237,207