MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Application of Quantum Neural Network for Solar Irradiance Forecasting: A Case Study Using the Folsom Dataset, California

2024· preprint· en· W4400254455 on OpenAlexaff
Victor Oliveira Santos, Felipe Pinto Marinho, Paulo Alexandre Costa Rocha, Jesse Van Griensven Thé, Bahram Gharabaghi

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSolar Radiation and Photovoltaics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial neural networkSolar irradianceRenewable energyCompetitor analysisArtificial intelligenceQuantumMachine learningData miningMeteorologyEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantum machine learning applications have become viable with the recent advancements in quantum computing. Merging ML with the power of quantum computing holds great potential for data-driven decision-making, as well as the development of more powerful models capable of handling more complex datasets with faster processing time. This area offers potential for improving the accuracy of real-time forecasting renewable energy production. However, the literature on this topic is sparse. Addressing this knowledge gap, this study aims to design, implement, and evaluate the performance of a quantum neural network forecast model for solar irradiance up to 3-hours ahead. The proposed model was compared with Support Vector Regression, Group Method of Data Handling, and Extreme Gradient Boost classical models. Using the best quantum neural network configuration found, the proposed framework could provide competitive results when compared to its competitors, considering forecasting intervals of 5- to 120-minutes ahead, where it was the fourth best-performing paradigm. For 3-hours ahead predictions, the QNN was able to overcome its clas-sical counterparts, but the XGBoost. This fact can be an indication that the quantum model may identify and retrieve relevant spatiotemporal information from the input dataset in such a manner not attainable by the current classical approaches.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.518
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.213
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.162 · 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.

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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicSolar Radiation and PhotovoltaicsFrench-language works237,207