MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Solar Irradiance Forecasting with Visible Spectrum Sky View Images and Random Forest Regression

2024· article· en· W4404411213 on OpenAlexaffabout
Trevor J. Coathup, Marianne Rodgers

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSolar Radiation and Photovoltaics
Canadian institutionsWind Energy Institute of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkyRandom forestIrradianceSolar irradianceRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceRegressionMeteorologyComputer scienceGeographyArtificial intelligenceStatisticsMathematicsPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Integrating solar photovoltaic (PV) energy into the electrical grid is challenging due to its inherent production variability stemming from clouds. Solar forecasts and grid inertia from our current electrical infrastructure help maintain grid stability and availability in the wake of PV production fluctuations. However, to transition to future high-renewable-energy-penetration grids, grid operators will require improved forecasting to proactively deploy grid-balancing assets and maintain grid reliability. In this work, we use 3-channel, 8-bit-depth visible spectrum sky-view images from a year-long dataset captured at 15-second intervals, and smart persistence features to predict broadband irradiance in North Cape, Canada over several forecasting horizons. Multiple features are extracted from a single sky-view image to train and test random forest regression models and evaluate feature importance over forecast horizons from 1 minute to 1 hour. The practicality and usefulness of the models are evaluated using testing and training computational times, and the prediction accuracies relative to the smart persistence model, respectively. The models achieve a positive skill score in the range of 0 to 0.1, outperforming the smart persistence model for all forecast horizons.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

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 communication0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.222 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSolar Radiation and PhotovoltaicsFrench-language works237,207