Predictions of solar power using ensemble machine learning techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predicting solar power production accurately is becoming more and more crucial for efficient power management and the grid's integration of renewable energy sources. Using data from an Australian photovoltaic (PV) power station, this study employs a variety of machine learning (ML) ensemble techniques, such as gradient boosting (GB), random forest (RF), and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), to forecast solar power production. ML models are developed utilizing pertinent information from electricity and meteorological data in order to forecast solar power. The predictive performance of trained ML models is verified in terms of metrics like mean absolute error (MAE), root mean square error (RMSE), and correlation coefficient (R2). With higher R2 values and lower error results (MAE and RMSE), XGBoost performs better than GB and RF. Optimizing the hyperparameters of the XGBoost model significantly improves its performance. The tweaked XGBoost model shows a significant improvement in R2 (more than 5% to 10%) and error results (reduced MAE and RMSE by 0.01 to 0.06), when compared to other ensemble approaches. Compared to other ensemble approaches, the tuned XGBoost methodology is more robust and generates more accurate forecasts in solar power.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".