Machine Learning Dynamic Ensemble Methods for Solar Irradiance and Wind Speed Predictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, solar irradiance and wind speed forecasts were performed considering time horizons ranging from 10 min to 60 min, under a 10 min time-step. Global horizontal irradiance (GHI) and wind speed were computed using four forecasting models (Random Forest, k-Nearest Neighbours, Support Vector Regression, and Elastic Net) to compare their performance against two alternative dynamic ensemble methods (windowing and arbitrating). Forecasting models and dynamic forecasting ensembles were implemented in Python for performance evaluation. The performance comparison between the prediction models and the dynamic ensemble methods was carried out by evaluating the RMSE, MAE, R² and MAPE, to evaluate whether the dynamic ensemble forecasting method obtained greater. According to the results obtained windowing dynamic ensemble method was the most efficient among the tested. For the wind speed data, by varying its parameter λ (from 1 to 100), a variable performance profile was obtained, where from λ =1 to λ = 74, windowing proved to be the most efficient, reaching maximum efficiency for λ = 19. Windowing was the best method for the GHI analysis, reaching its best performance for λ = 1. The efficiency gain using windowing was 0.56% when using the wind speed model and 1.96% for GHI.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".