MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Using Neural Network Decomposition to Estimate Field Photovoltaic Performance Loss Rate

2023· article· en· W4390189488 on OpenAlexaff
Yangxin Fan, Raymond Wieser, Xuanji Yu, Jennifer L. Braid, Avishai Shaton, Adam Hoffman, Thevenard Didier, Ben Spurgeon, Daniel C. Gibbons, Laura S. Bruckman, Yinghui Wu, Roger H. French

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsMorgan Solar (Canada)
FundersSolar Energy Technologies Office
KeywordsComputer sciencePhotovoltaic systemArtificial neural networkField (mathematics)EstimationData miningDecompositionArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimation of Photovoltaic (PV) Performance Loss Rate (PLR) becomes increasingly important in the stage of rapid growth of PV industry. Accurate PLR estimation benefits PV users by providing real-time monitoring of the PV modules' performance. Explainable PLR estimation can help PV manufacturers study and improve performance of their products. However, traditional PLR estimations, based on statistical models, have some major disadvantages. First, they need user knowledge and decisions. Second, they tend to be less robust to non-uniform and low-quality data. To address these issues, we propose the NN-PLR, a Neural Network decomposition method for field PV PLR estimations. NN-PLR decomposes the power timeseries data into seasonality, trend, and remainder components and uses trend to estimate PLR. Decompositions used to derive PLR can reveal how PLR vary and change across different PV systems. Using digital power plant datasets, we have demonstrated that NN-PLR can produce comparable PLR estimation results to traditional PLR estimation methods while needing much less input tweaks.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy Load and Power ForecastingFrench-language works237,207