Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Models for Accurate Solar Energy Forecasting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To keep the grid stable, to improve storage and to help the energy market work, accurate solar power prediction is needed. The Calgary dataset was used in the study to compare machine learning and deep learning models—XGBoost, CatBoost, LightGBM, Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) and Temporal Convolutional Networks (TCN)—for short-term energy forecasting. The study also follows a method that includes preprocessing, feature engineering and model training to show the weather and time relationships. The coefficient of determination (<tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$\mathbf{R}^{\mathbf{2}}$</tex>), the Symmetric Mean Absolute Percentage Error (sMAPE), the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and the Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) were used to assess the models. The findings show that gradient boosting techniques regularly beat deep learning models in this setting. XGBoost got the highest accuracy, recording an <tex xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">$\mathbf{R}^{\mathbf{2}}$</tex> of 0.997 and an RMSE of 3.64 kWh. It outperforms CatBoost and LightGBM. CatBoost and LightGBM which had higher error rates. Conversely, LSTM and TCN exhibited subpar performance, suggesting challenges in managing feature-sparse datasets with restricted temporal data. The findings indicate that gradient boosting techniques, especially XGBoost, are resilient, effective and ideally suited for enhancing renewable energy integration.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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".