Enhancing Solar Energy Production Forecasting with Ensemble-based Learning Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The global trend in renewable energy solutions has emphasized the urgent need for accurate forecasting of solar energy production. This study examines the potential of ensemble-based learning techniques in predicting solar energy production by leveraging historical data collected from 11 solar photovoltaic installations in Calgary, Canada, spanning from September 2015 to March 2023. The dataset was carefully preprocessed to handle missing values, duplicates, and to extract meaningful features that align with the nature of time series data. A range of ML models were implemented and assessed by several forecasting evaluation metrics, including Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Mean Squared Error (MSE), and R-squared$(\mathrm{R}^{2})$. The experimental results demonstrate the superior performance of ensemble methods, particularly XGBoost and Light GBM, in solar energy forecasting. XGBoost achieved the best performance, with an MAE of 25.36, an MSE of 3599.66, and$\mathrm{R}^{2}$of 0.957, outperforming models such as Random Forest and Neural Networks. The practical implications of these findings suggest that accurate solar energy forecasting can significantly enhance operational planning and optimize energy management in solar power plants, contributing to more reliable and efficient renewable energy systems.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".