A spatial–temporal data-driven deep learning framework for enhancing ultra-short-term prediction of distributed photovoltaic power generation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Proposed a spatial–temporal prediction model for PV power generation that combines data-driven and deep learning. • The ABCGRU network based on BiConvGRU, self-attention mechanism and encoder-decoder structure is established. • Pearson correlation coefficient, the normalized Euclidean distance and the Shape-based distance (SBD) analysis based on cross-correlation are used to analyze spatial-temporal characteristics. • The model is verified by four regional and urban datasets. Effective utilization of spatial–temporal information can improve the accuracy of ultra-short-term prediction of power generation from distributed photovoltaic (PV) stations in the region. This paper introduces an ultra-short-term spatial–temporal prediction model for distributed PV power generation, blending data-driven methodology with deep learning technique. The model integrates a self-attention mechanism (SA), a Bi-directional Convolutional Gated Recurrent Unit (BiConvGRU), and an encoder-decoder structure, called ABCGRU. The spatial–temporal attributes of PV power generation can be effectively utilized to accurately predict the output of PV power stations at different locations. Firstly, this paper proposes a 2D distributed PV measurement frame approach considering the spatial–temporal properties of PV power. The combination of Pearson correlation coefficient, the normalized Euclidean distance, the Shape-based distance (SBD) analysis based on cross-correlation and geographic distance reduces the input dimensionality. Secondly, to better capture the spatial–temporal patterns within the 2D distributed PV measurement frame, this paper proposes the ABCGRU model. Finally, the predictive performance of the model is verified through experiments. On the Birmingham dataset, the relative absolute error (RAE) for single-step (15 min) prediction is 0.13, and the average RAE for multi-step (30–60 min) prediction is about four times higher than ConvGRU. The single-step prediction RAE of Little Rock and New Orleans datasets is about 3–4 times higher than ConvGRU. In the comparison between the same series of models, the 4-layer ABCGRU has the highest accuracy. Moreover, the effectiveness of data dimensionality reduction was verified through experimental comparison. The RAE for single-step prediction on the Datong dataset is 0.0048.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".