Machine Learning Dynamic Ensemble Methods for Solar Irradiance and Wind Speed Predictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes to analyze the performance increase in the forecasting of solar irradiance and wind speed by implementing a dynamic ensemble architecture for intra-hour horizon ranging from 10 to 60 min for a 10 min time step data. Global horizontal irradiance (GHI) and wind speed were computed using four standalone forecasting models (random forest, k-nearest neighbors, support vector regression, and elastic net) to compare their performance against two dynamic ensemble methods, windowing and arbitrating. The standalone models and the dynamic ensemble methods were evaluated using the error metrics RMSE, MAE, R2, and MAPE. This work’s findings showcased that the windowing dynamic ensemble method was the best-performing architecture when compared to the other evaluated models. For both cases of wind speed and solar irradiance forecasting, the ensemble windowing model reached the best error values in terms of RMSE for all the assessed forecasting horizons. Using this approach, the wind speed forecasting gain was 0.56% when compared with the second-best forecasting model, whereas the gain for GHI prediction was 1.96%, considering the RMSE metric. The development of an ensemble model able to provide accurate and precise estimations can be implemented in real-time forecasting applications, helping the evaluation of wind and solar farm operation.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".