MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Models for Accurate Solar Energy Forecasting

2025· article· W7160435859 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Md.Iftakhar Ahsan Jarif, Abir Tirtha Das, Bishwajit Banik Pathik

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicSolar Radiation and Photovoltaics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnergy (signal processing)Solar energyArtificial neural networkKey (lock)Support vector machineRenewable energy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.219 · 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.

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSolar Radiation and PhotovoltaicsFrench-language works237,207