1 views

Uploaded by Rahul Makade

© All Rights Reserved

- A Guide to Regression Analysis Using MS Excel
- Regression With SAS
- Century National Banks
- Predicting Customer Benefit
- The impact of fiscal decentralization and budgetary deconcentration on regional disparities in Morocco
- hasil TQM
- Statistical Based Method Data Mining Algorithm
- Prediction of Repair & Maintenance Costs of Diesel Engine
- Linear Regression
- Gaspipeline Case Study
- Determinants of Total Consumption in Sudan
- Reading 13
- 2a Linear Regression 18May
- Studenmund_Ch03_v2
- Hossein i 183
- out (2)
- Read Me Instructions - Machine Learning Mining Industry.docx
- An Intelligent Clustering Forecasting System Based on Change-Point Detection and Aritificial Neural Networks - Application to Financial Economics.pdf
- M17_Part1_Tier1a
- Final Test

You are on page 1of 16

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

⁎

Amandeep Sharma , Ajay Kakkar

Electronics and Communication Engineering Department, Thapar University, Patiala, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: Rechargeable wireless sensor networks mitigate the life span and cost constraints propound in conventional

Solar irradiance battery operated networks. Reliable knowledge of solar radiation is essential for informed design, deployment

Energy harvesting planning and optimal management of self-powered nodes. The problem of solar irradiance forecasting can be

Solar forecasting well addressed by machine learning methodologies over historical data set. In proposed work, forecasts have

Machine learning

been done using FoBa, leapForward, spikeslab, Cubist and bagEarthGCV models. To validate the eﬀectiveness of

these methodologies, a series of experimental evaluations have been presented in terms of forecast accuracy,

correlation coeﬃcient and root mean square error (RMSE). The r interface has been used as simulation platform

for these evaluations. The dataset from national renewable energy laboratory (NREL) has been used for

experiments. The experimental results exhibits that from few hours to two days ahead solar irradiance

prediction is precisely estimated by machine learning based models irrespective of seasonal variation in weather

conditions.

1. Introduction izons. With the concern of practical use, Fig. 2 shows diﬀerent

forecasting horizons and related activities in solar based power

Recent developments in wireless sensor technology incorporate systems.

self-powered sensors to autonomously operate for real time parameter Very short term forecasting is essential for real time monitoring of

updates. Various energy harvesting technologies provide diﬀerent battery status. Short term forecasting is critical for decision making

kinds of widely distributed endless supply including solar light, piezo- activities including unit commitment etc. Medium term forecasting is

electricity, RF, physical motions and electromagnetic ﬁelds. Solar eﬀective for maintenance scheduling and spinning of power unit. Long

energy with photovoltaic cell modules has been considered as the best term forecasting is useful in planning the network operations. Precise

ambient source because of high power density (15 mW/cm3), adequate solar forecasting ensure reliable and stable rechargeable sensor opera-

conversion eﬃciency (17%) and compatibility with integrated circuit tion with improved control algorithms for battery backup. Diﬀerent

technology. Table A1 summarizes the power density and conversion forecasting methodologies have been developed for solar irradiance

eﬃciency of diﬀerent sources [1,2] and given in Appendix A. forecasting task and summarized in Section 1.2.

Solar power based systems are restrained by diﬀerent metrological Dependency on metrological conditions causes renewable energy

conditions, seasonal variability, geographical constraints and intra- resources to be inconsistent. Under this constraint, reliable solar

hour solar intensity. Fig. 1 exhibits monthly statistics based global solar irradiance forecast on diﬀerent time horizons is essential for develop-

radiation on horizontal surface from January to December 2016. ing and utilizing solar energy based systems. As a sequel, research on

Dataset has been adapted from solar radiation research laboratory solar irradiance forecasting has been germinated along with the areas

(SRRL) under national renewable energy laboratory (NREL) [3] with of forecasting theory [5,6], solar physics [7], stochastic processes [8]

CMP-22 pyrometer as solar radiation sensor [4]. Fig. 1(a) shows the and machine learning [9]. Although all these methods have not the

seasonal variation of solar irradiance and Fig. 1(b) exhibits the same accuracy with respect to target forecasting horizon, the char-

maximum and minimum solar intensity with respect to diﬀerent acteristic of machine learning models to trace relation between input

months of the year. Solar forecasting diminishes the eﬀect of resource and output parameters allow this methodology to be successful in

variability and uncertainty by targeting diﬀerent forecast time hor- various domains including classiﬁcation, data mining and solar fore-

⁎

Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: amandeep.sharma@thapar.edu (A. Sharma), ajay.kakkar@thapar.edu (A. Kakkar).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.08.066

Received 4 May 2017; Received in revised form 17 July 2017; Accepted 18 August 2017

1364-0321/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Sharma, A., Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.08.066

A. Sharma, A. Kakkar Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

xtPredicted Predicted solar energy

G Global solar irradiance (mW/cm2) xtActual Measured solar energy

r Correlation coeﬃcient d Present day

r2 Coeﬃcient of determination t Present time slot

RMSE Root mean square error T Historical time slots

casting. Classiﬁcation and data mining have been considered as the with neural networks for parameter optimization. But similar to neural

initial step for machine learning based models as pre-processing of networks, it is hard to trace the dynamic behaviour of the atmosphere,

data has been required with big datasets. mathematically. Belaid et al. [20] proposed a SVM based approach for

Neural networks (NN) [10,11], genetic algorithm (GA) [12], sup- one step ahead solar forecasting with extraterrestrial solar irradiance,

port vector machine (SVM) [13] and fuzzy based models [14] are sunshine duration and ambient temperature as input parameters.

extensively used machine learning based methodologies in solar Jiang et al. [21] presented SVM approach with hard penalty function

forecasting. A multilayer perceptron (MLP) model with daily solar to select optimized number of radial basis function. They also imple-

irradiance and average air temperature as input parameters has been ment glowworm swarm optimization algorithm to choose optimal

proposed by Mellit et al. [15] for 24 h ahead forecasting. Kemmoku parameters for forecasting. Boata et al. [22] introduced autoregressive

et al. [16] proposed a multistage neural network by considering various fuzzy algorithm based model for dollar prediction by estimating daily

metrological parameters of past days and mean atmospheric pressure clearness index.

that is predicted by another neural network for the prediction of next

day. Hocaoglu et al. [17] integrate multistage neural network concept 1.3. Contribution

with time delay neural network models for hourly solar irradiance

forecasting. A comparison of neural network based models and In proposed work, multiple machine learning based models has

clearness index based time series models has been given by Sfetsos been applied to track eﬀective solar forecasting models and analyse

et al. [18]. They consider daily ambient temperature, atmospheric prediction accuracy of each model. Machine learning has been applied

pressure and wind speed as inputs to neural network based model for on historical solar intensity observations as training dataset to calculate

hourly prediction. Main constraint with neural network based models future solar irradiance for diﬀerent forecasting horizons irrespective of

is the designing of ﬂawless network structure with optimal values of seasonal variation and input parameters availability.

diﬀerent parameters. Quaiyum et al. [19] introduces endogenous and In Section 2, modelling of machine learning based models for solar

exogenous models that work on past solar irradiance and diﬀerent irradiance prediction has been discussed. Description of database has

weather parameters respectively. They also integrate genetic algorithm been presented in Section 3. Equations for performance indicators has

1000 25000

Solar irradiation (w-hour/m2)

Solar irradiance (w/m2)

800 20000

600

15000

400

10000

200

5000

0

0

1390

1853

2316

2779

3242

3705

4168

4631

5094

5557

6020

6483

6946

7409

7872

8335

1

464

927

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

-200

Time (hourly resolution) Month

(a) (b)

Fig. 1. (a). Solar irradiance (hourly) and (b) Minimum, maximum and average solar irradiance (monthly).

Application monitoring scheduling planning

Forecasting

horizon

Time steps

minutes ahead ahead ahead

2

A. Sharma, A. Kakkar Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

2

been summarized in Section 4. Section 5 includes simulation results

R(w ) = n−1 ∑j wfj j −y

and discussions. The proposed work has been concluded in Section 6. 2 (2)

A backward step has been taken when the increase of cost function

2. Solar irradiance forecasting platform is no more than half of the decrease of cost function in earlier forward

steps i.e. if l forward steps has been taken, the cost function should be

2.1. Machine learning methodology decreased by at least by an amount of l∈ /2 . This means that if R(W ) ≥ 0

for all ∈R d , the algorithm terminates no more than 2R(0)/∈ steps. The

All machine learning based algorithms works to trace a predictive procedure for FoBa [23] has been listed in Appendix B.

model that estimates a particular type of data with high accuracy. Large

dataset is essential for the learning algorithm to understand the 2.2.2. leapForward

behaviour of the system. Fig. 3 exhibits the machine learning metho- It performs exhaustive search using match-select-action cycle to for

dology. First step for machine learning based system is data procure- tracing best subset of predicting variables [25]. Selecting subset refers

ment. Collected data has been divided from diﬀerent prospective and to ﬁnding a small set of independent variables that oﬀers less

summarizes in useful information. The steps included in this process is prediction error in predicting the dependent variables. Rules that can

data cleansing and data segregation. Data has been segregated in three identify ﬁnite set of ordered variables that can satisfy their predicates

disjoint sets, training, testing and blind set. Training dataset has been are selected. When one n -sets are selected that particular rule has been

applied for model training and testing dataset has been used for model ﬁred. This procedure continues until no more rules can be ﬁred. The

optimization and evaluation. Blind dataset has been used for cross key point of leap algorithm is lazy subset selection i.e. subset emerges

validation. only when they are required. This perspective increases rule execution

eﬃciency and reduces space complexity of leaps algorithm.

2.2. Machine learning models When a variable has been selected or deleted, a timestamp to that

element has been placed on the stack that uphold the timestamp

In proposed work, machine learning based time series models ordering of variables. The most recent added variable has been placed

which are based on historically observed solar irradiance as input on the top of the stack and select ﬁrst during rule execution cycle. This

parameter have been used for solar forecasting called endogenous variable is called dominant object and originate the selection predicates

forecasting. Fig. 4 summarizes ﬁve forecasting models used in pro- of all rules in an ordered way. When all the rules have been examined,

posed work with their methodologies and explained in following that dominant object has been popped up from the stack. When a

section. dominant object originated n subset has been found, the corresponding

rule is ﬁred. A new dominant object has been selected when a rule gets

ﬁred. These execution steps repeats until stack get empty and given in

2.2.1. FoBa (Adaptive forward – backward greedy algorithm) Appendix C.

FoBa is based on forward greedy algorithm with adaptive backward

steps [23,24]. The objective is to remove any error caused by earlier 2.2.3. Spikeslab

forward steps and avoid large number of basis functions. Adapted The spikeslab model [26,27] implements rescaled spikes and slab

backward steps ensure that any backward greedy step will not erase algorithms using a continuous bimodal prior. The model has been

gain made in forward steps. Consider n input vectors implemented in three stages shown in Fig. 5 and listed below:

xi ∈ R d (i = 1, . . . , n ),d feature vectors f j ∈ R n(j = 1, . . . , d ) with out- In step 1, ﬁltering process carries top nF variables where n is the

put variables y=R n . Each f j is equivalent to jth feature component of xi sample size and F > 0 is the user deﬁned fraction. Rest of the variables

that corresponds to f j, i = xi, j . With sparsity parameter k , non convex L 0 are ﬁltered out to reduce the dimension. The posterior mean coeﬃcient

regularization can be written as: has been calculated using Gibbs sampling for appropriate ordering of

ẇ = argmin w ∈ R d R(w ) variables. Step 2 reﬁt the model using only those variables those are not

(1)

ﬁltered in step 1. Gibbs sampler has been used to for model ﬁtting and

Where ‖ w ‖ 0 ≤ k , w = [w1, w2,. . . ,wd ] ∈ R d and for least square regres- returns posterior mean values referred to as Bayesian model averaged

sion, R(w ) is a real valued cost function and calculated as: (BMA) estimate. Generalized elastic net (gnet) in step 3 has been used

Data Testing

Procurement Mining Training

Train

Model

Data Cleansing

Data Segregation

Training Model optimization

Set and Evaluation

Testing

Set

Cross validation

Blind

Set

3

A. Sharma, A. Kakkar Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Adaptive forward Regression subset spikes and slab Rule based Multivariate adaptive

backward greedy selection algorithm multivariate linear regression splines

algorithm modelling

for variable selection. Variables obtained from restricted BMA from A predicted value from a model tree has been adjusted to take account

step 2 have been classiﬁed in groups. Grouping force variables to share models at the nodes along the path from root to that leaf. The

a common regularization parameter. There is no limit on number of calculation is as follows:

groups. A variable that does not appear in the list will be assigned to a n × Predicted ′+k × Predicted

default group that has its own group speciﬁc regularization parameter. Predicted′′ =

n+k (4)

Where Predicted′′ is the prediction passed on the next higher nodes,

2.2.4. Cubist model Predicted′ is prediction passed to this node from below, Predicted is the

Cubist was developed by Quinlan [28] for inducing trees for predicted value at this node, n is the number of training cases that

regression models. Cubist is a rule based predictive model where each reach the node below and k is a constant.

rule carries a multivariate linear model. These models works on the

predictions of previous splits [29,30]. When a case satisﬁes all rule 2.2.5. BagEarthGCV

based conditions, the associated model has been used for prediction. It is a non-parametric regression technique and based on multi-

Fig. 6 shows the ﬂow diagram of cubist model. In ﬁrst stage recursive variate adaptive regression splines (MARS) [31,32]. Open source

partitioning (divide and conquer) of training cases has been exercised implementations of MARS are termed as Earth as MARS term is

to generate piecewise linear model in the form of regression based licenced to Salford systems. The MARSplines model has been imple-

model tree. Each training case has a set of attributes and associated mented by Eq. (5):

target value.

U

The basic approach is to generate a model that relates target values

f (x ) = ω0 + ∑ ωuhu(x )

of the training cases to their values of other attributes. A splitting u =1 (5)

criteria has been used to minimize the intra subset variation in the class

values instead of maximizing the information gain at each interior f (x ) is predicted as a function of predictor variables x , intercept

node. The splitting criteria is based on computing standard deviation of parameter ω0 and weighted sum of one or more basis functions. Each

target values of the cases in T. The attribute that minimizes standard ωu is a constant coeﬃcient.

deviation has been chosen. If sd (Ti ) has been considered as standard Bagging: It is a model averaging approach that computes multiple

deviation of the target of the cases in Ti then reduction in standard version of a predictor and use them to derive an aggregate predictor.

deviation has been calculated as: Multiple versions has been generated by making bootstrap replicates of

training set and using it as a new training set. Bagging improves

Ti stability, prediction accuracy and avoid overﬁtting of diﬀerent machine

Error = sd (T ) − ∑ × sd (Ti )

i

T (3) learning approaches.

Pruning: After forward stepwise selection of basis functions, a

Where T is the set of cases that reach the node and T1, T2 … are backward procedure called pruning has been applied to remove those

selected cases after splitting the node according to chosen attributes. At basis functions those are least concerned with increase in goodness-of-

the second stage Pruning has been carried out by estimating the ﬁt. The generalized cross validation error is a measure of goodness-of-

expected error that will be experienced at each node for test data. Each ﬁt that considers residual error together with model complexity and

linear model is simpliﬁed by eliminating parameters in order to reduce formulated as:

its estimated error. Parameters are eliminated one by one so long as the

N

error estimate decreases. Each internal node of the tree has both a ∑i =1 (yi − f (x )i )2

GCV = whereC = 1+cd

simpliﬁed model and a model subtree. The one with lowest estimated C

(1− N )2 (6)

error has chosen.

Finally, smoothing process has been carried out to compensate In Eq. (6), N signiﬁes number of cases in dataset, d is degree of

abrupt discontinuities between adjacent linear models of a pruned tree. freedom and corresponds to number of independent basis functions.

averaged net

Fig. 5. Flow diagram of spikeslab.

4

A. Sharma, A. Kakkar Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Training cases, T algorithm for tree Tree pruning Smoothing

building

t − (∑ x tActual)(∑ x Predicted

t )

r=

⎡ (Actual) 2 2 ⎤⎡ 2 2⎤

To determine the eﬀectiveness of above mentioned models, histor- ⎢N ∑ x t − (∑ x tActual) ⎥⎢N ∑ x (tPredicted) − (x Predicted)⎥

⎣ ⎦⎣ t

⎦

ical solar data set including daily solar irradiance over a period of six

−1.0 ≤ r ≤ + 1.0 (7)

years (January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2015) has been collected from

national renewable energy laboratory (NREL). NREL is primary

national laboratory in US for renewable energy that uses baseline • Coeﬃcient of determination or r2 (0≤r 2≤1) exhibit the proportional

measurement system (BMS) with latitude 39.742 north, longitude variation of one variable which is predicted from other variable by

105.18 west and elevation 1828.8 m with time zone GMT-7. The data measuring the predicted values that are best ﬁt to regression line.

set obtained from NREL has been sampled on per minute basis on Square of correlation coeﬃcient, r has been taken as coeﬃcient of

horizontal plane with 1440 samples per day. Historical data for the determination in linear least square regression.

same month from all the six years has been taken for training. For • To calculate the diﬀerence between real time measurements and

instance, if March 11, 2016 has to be predicted, the March dataset has speciﬁc model predicted values, root mean square error (RMSE) or

to be taken from the years from 2010 to 2015 for training. This has root mean square deviation (RMSD) has been used:

been done to circumvent variable maximum and minimum solar T

1

irradiance and diﬀerent duration of sunshine for diﬀerent months as RMSE = ∑ (x Actual

t − x Predicted

t )^2

shown in Fig. 1. Best input selection is the primary goal to train models T t=1 (8)

for diﬀerent forecasting horizons. Diﬀerent conﬁgurations of historical

data set has been tested to downright the training process. Season

(spring, summer, monsoon, winter) base training of diﬀerent models

• Accuracy measures the proximity of the analytical results to the

actual value. In proposed work an acceptance error of ±20 has been

has been performed. The models have been trained for ± 5 to ± 25 past considered.

days (Dd-1, Dd-2,…., Dd-n) and for 6:00 a.m. onwards past time slots (Tt-1,

T

Tt-2, …, Tt-n). These features have been selected by exhaustive simula- 1

tion process with respect to correlation coeﬃcient (r), coeﬃcient of

%Accuracy = ∑ abs(x Actual

t − x Predicted

t )×100

T t=1 (9)

determination (r2), RMSE and accuracy. Section 4 describes these

performance matrixes. Machine learning based models assure similar The model performance has not been evaluated for night test

metrological behaviour in Training and testing datasets while keeping a samples as solar irradiance is not available during night hours.

ratio of 70% training and 30% testing.

5. Simulation and result discussion

4. Performance matrixes

A series of simulation experiments have been performed to enquire

To precisely evaluate the prediction accuracy of previously de- the accuracy of ﬁve solar irradiance forecasting models. A common

scribed models, four statistical quality measures has been adopted. platform has been used to run all experiments. The present section

These measures are executed by the following equations: narrate diﬀerent experimental results. Historical data of last six years

from NREL has been used for training. To evaluate the forecasting

• Correlation is a statistic that interpret the degree of correspondence models in diﬀerent weather conditions, four days, 11th March (spring),

25th June (summer), 30th August (monsoon) and 31st December

between two variables:

(winter) from diﬀerent seasons of year 2016 has been used for testing.

As shown in Fig. 7 data on 11th March and 30th August is smooth as

these are sunny days, data on 25th June varies throughout the day

1000

Measured solar irradiance (w/m2)

800

600

400

Time : 6:00 - 18:00

Time: 6:00 - 18:00

Time: 6:00 - 18:00

30th August, 2016

11 March, 2016

200

0

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61

Time (61 hours)

5

A. Sharma, A. Kakkar Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

12.17

20.56

70.66

11.07

82.14

85.71

10.38

89.29

11.27

89.29

± 25

.98

.96

.98

.96

.93

.92

.98

.96

.98

.96

25

sesses smooth behaviour with lower maximum and minimum solar

intensity thresholds because of winter season.

98.21

13.49

78.57

16.34

75.88

12.14

82.14

± 20

2.92

9.24

87.5

.98

.96

.95

.97

.99

.98

.98

.96

20

5.1. Experiments

1

1

15.99

78.18

14.14

13.75

83.64

14.66

78.18

15.14

81.82

± 15

Three experiments have been carried out to access prediction

.97

.94

.97

.94

.98

.96

.97

.94

.97

.94

15

80

31 December (Winter)

eﬀectiveness based on input parameter selection. In the ﬁrst one,

impact of number of past days on prediction accuracy has been

17.05

89.19

17.32

78.38

17.06

72.97

17.55

78.38

19.82

75.68

± 10

evaluated. Second experiment evaluates the performance by varying

.97

.94

.96

.92

.97

.94

.97

.92

.96

.92

10

number of past time slots. In the third experiment diﬀerent forecasting

horizons has been considered to evaluate the forecasting models.

14.77

63.16

84.21

78.95

12.39

78.95

84.21

12.9

9.74

8.49

±5

.99

.98

.99

.98

.99

.98

5

1

1

1

1

5.1.1. Prediction accuracy with respect to number of past days

21.69

78.57

21.67

83.93

19.86

80.36

18.51

76.89

19.65

78.57

± 25

In experiment 1, simulation has been performed with 10–50 past

.97

.94

.96

.92

.97

.94

.97

.94

.97

.94

25

days for training and 5–25 past days for testing for all ﬁve forecasting

models. As shown in Table 1, for 11th March, leapForward shows

31.68

57.14

33.18

73.21

30.33

67.86

30.62

71.43

31.68

66.07

± 20

maximum accuracy of 96.08% with ±15 training days and 15 past days

.93

.86

.91

.83

.93

.86

.93

.86

.93

.86

20

for testing. Cubist achieves maximum accuracy of 78.95% for 25th

June with ±5 training days and 5 historical days for testing. For 30th

28.54

65.45

29.61

61.82

63.64

26.71

74.55

29.87

65.45

± 15

28.8

August, an accuracy of 89.47% has been achieved by bagEarthGCV with

.94

.88

.94

.88

.95

.95

.95

15

.9

.9

.9

30 August (Monsoon)

±5 training days and 5 historical days for testing. An accuracy of

98.21% has been gained by FoBa with ±20 training days and 20 days

33.23

56.76

41.31

64.86

30.64

72.97

64.86

38.15

67.57

± 10

37.1

.95

.87

.76

.94

.88

.92

.85

.89

.79

10

for testing for 31st December. The performance ranking of above

.9

mentioned models is complicated because relationship between past

days weather metrics and present day solar intensity is complicated.

11.27

89.47

33.71

42.11

14.69

73.68

12.52

89.47

10.98

84.21

±5

.99

.98

.97

.94

.99

.98

The choice of most accurate model with adequate number of past days

1

1

1

1

depends upon on present day weather conditions and is iteration

speciﬁc.

98.98

29.09

100.3

23.64

93.77

36.36

100.9

47.27

36.36

± 25

109

.89

.79

.87

.76

.88

.77

.86

.74

.86

.74

25

57.88

54.55

57.88

54.55

53.46

54.55

35.47

61.82

54.53

45.45

± 20

In experiment 2, initial time slots from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. has

.96

.92

.96

.92

.97

.94

.98

.96

.96

.92

20

Table 2 exhibits the eﬀect of initial past time slots on prediction

56.59

50.91

56.44

50.91

55.57

43.64

49.61

60.85

43.64

± 15

accuracy. For diﬀerent four days (11th March, 25th June, 30th August

.95

.95

.95

.95

.95

15

60

.9

.9

.9

.9

.9

and 31st December), FoBa oﬀers maximum accuracy (70.27%, 64.86%,

Comparison results of five forecasting models for selection of historical days for forecasting (Experiment 1).

25 June (summer)

47.22

64.86

47.14

64.86

35.89

56.76

36.79

59.46

44.81

43.24

± 10

.98

.96

.98

.96

.99

.98

.98

.96

.98

.96

10

eﬀect of initial past samples on prediction accuracy as illustrated in

35.18

78.95

Table 2. For 11th March, 25th June, 30th August and 31st December

64.18

57.89

44.42

42.11

35.53

63.16

50.68

52.63

±5

.99

.98

.96

.92

.99

.98

.98

.96

.98

.96

maximum accuracies are 96.08%, 64.86%, 83.93% and 84.21% respec-

5

tively for almost all simulation cases. Experimental results shows that

38.36

67.86

67.86

34.34

34.28

64.29

39.05

similar to leapForward model, spikeslab oﬀers less variation with

± 25

38.3

62.5

.96

.92

.96

.92

.97

.94

.97

.94

.96

.92

25

50

respect to initial time slot consideration and achieves high prediction

accuracy with less past samples consideration. For 11th March, 25th

36.51

66.07

42.11

57.14

36.17

66.07

76.79

27.04

71.43

± 20

25.5

.96

.92

.96

.92

.96

.92

.98

.96

.97

.94

20

85.45% respectively) has been gained with past time slots from

10:00 a.m. onwards. For 30th August maximum accuracy (78.95%)

96.08

35.77

52.94

25.62

66.67

14.31

84.31

88.24

± 15

3.07

has been gained with past samples from 6:00 a.m. onwards. Cubist

9.49

.99

.99

.98

.96

.99

.98

.99

.98

15

1

1

11 March (spring)

consideration (6:00 a.m. onwards). For 11th March, 25th June, 30th

32.25

70.27

32.03

48.65

27.98

67.57

75.68

25.39

75.68

± 10

21.7

.98

.96

.98

.96

.98

.96

.99

.98

.98

.96

10

63.16%, 94.74% and 89.29%) of bagEarthGCV is high for all the days

55.41

47.37

00.79

63.67

47.37

47.96

57.89

53.62

63.16

35.92

63.16

±5

(11th March, 25th June, 30th August and 31st December respectively)

.94

.88

.89

.94

.88

.93

.86

.95

.9

5

base.

accuracy

accuracy

accuracy

accuracy

accuracy

RMSE

RMSE

RMSE

RMSE

RMSE

r2

r2

r2

r2

r2

r

r

Past days (training)

Past days (testing)

seasonal validation

To investigate the prediction accuracy of ﬁve forecasting models

leapForward

Bagearthgcv

spikeslab

Cubist

Season

Table 1

Foba

correlation coeﬃcient (r2), RMSE and accuracy (%).

6

Table 2

Comparison results of five forecasting models for selection initial past time slots for forecasting (Experiment 2).

Initial past time slots 6:00 am 7:00 am 8:00 am 9:00 am 10:00 am 6:00 am 7:00 am 8:00 am 9:00 am 10:00 am

FoBa r .92 .98 .97 .98 .98 .96 .98 .95 .95 .96

A. Sharma, A. Kakkar

RMSE 63.03 32.25 34.49 29.89 34.37 76.3 47.22 75.02 75.02 64.81

accuracy 49.02 70.27 60.78 62.75 62.75 32.43 64.86 43.24 43.24 40.54

leapForward r −0.59 1 1 1 1 .98 .98 .98 .98 .98

r2 .35 1 1 1 1 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96

RMSE 654.5 3.07 3.07 13.55 3.07 47.14 47.14 47.14 47.14 47.14

accuracy 0 96.08 96.08 78.43 96.08 64.86 64.86 64.86 64.86 64.86

spikeslab r .98 .98 .98 .98 .98 .98 .99 .98 .98 .99

r2 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .98 .96 .96 .98

RMSE 27.98 27.98 28.19 28.23 29.18 35.13 35.89 40.42 33.24 32.36

accuracy 70.27 67.57 70.27 67.57 78.38 63.16 56.76 63.16 63.16 68.42

Cubist r .99 .99 .97 .98 .97 .98 .99 .98 .98 .98

r2 .98 .98 .94 .96 .94 .96 .98 .96 .96 .96

RMSE 11.72 21.7 16.62 17.17 34.28 47.16 35.18 50.23 45.21 39.39

accuracy 90.2 75.68 90.2 86.27 64.29 57.89 78.95 47.37 52.63 57.89

bagEarthGCV r .99 .98 1 .99 1 .99 .98 .99 .96 .98

r2 .98 .96 1 .98 1 .98 .96 .98 .92 .96

RMSE 10.29 25.39 8.8 10.41 7.45 34.08 44.81 46.4 71.59 40.84

accuracy 90.2 75.68 90.2 94.12 86.27 63.16 43.24 42.11 42.11 52.63

7

Initial past time slots 6:00 am 7:00 am 8:00 am 9:00 am 10:00 am 6:00 am 7:00 am 8:00 am 9:00 am 10:00 am

FoBa r .97 .97 .95 .96 .96 .99 1 .99 .99 .99

r2 .94 .94 .9 .92 .92 .98 1 .98 .98 .98

RMSE 23.33 23.33 33.23 28.8 29.08 14.77 2.92 14.49 11.18 12.46

accuracy 66.07 66.07 56.76 57.14 57.14 63.16 98.21 63.16 78.95 78.95

leapForward r .96 .96 .96 .96 .96 .99 .99 .99 .99 .99

r2 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .98 .98 .98 .98 .98

RMSE 21.67 21.67 21.67 21.67 21.67 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9

accuracy 83.93 83.93 83.93 83.93 83.93 84.21 84.21 84.21 84.21 84.21

spikeslab r 1 .94 .95 .99 1 .98 .97 .97 .97 .97

r2 1 .88 .9 .98 1 .96 .94 .94 .94 .94

RMSE 13.9 30.64 28.8 20.84 15.63 14.18 17.06 13.48 13.62 13.18

accuracy 78.95 72.97 63.64 57.89 57.89 83.64 72.97 85.45 81.82 85.45

Cubist r .99 .92 .99 .99 .99 .98 .97 .98 .98 .98

r2 .98 .85 .98 .98 .98 .96 .92 .96 .96 .96

RMSE 10.98 37.1 12.78 12.78 14.87 11.22 17.55 10.84 12.47 12.41

accuracy 84.21 64.86 84.21 84.21 84.21 85.71 78.38 83.93 83.93 82.14

bagEarthGCV r .99 .99 1 .99 1 .98 .96 .97 .98 .98

r2 .98 .98 1 .98 1 .96 .92 .94 .96 .96

RMSE 13.54 11.27 9.84 16.02 11.64 11.22 19.82 13.32 11.16 10.59

accuracy 84.21 89.47 94.74 78.95 78.95 85.71 75.68 83.93 87.5 89.29

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

A. Sharma, A. Kakkar Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

(a)

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

1200 1000 1000

r2=.96 900 r2=1 r2=.98

900

1000 FoBa leapForward spikeslab

800 800

700 700

800

600 600

600 500

500

400

400

400 300

300

200

200 200

100

100

0 0

0 500 1000 0 500 1000 0

0 500 1000

Measured solar irradiance (w/m2) Measured solar irradiance(w/m2) Measured solar irradiance (w/m2)

1000 1000

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

900 r2=.98 900

800 Cubist bagEarthGCV 88.24 90.2

800 86.27 84.31

700 700 62.75

16.99 13.68

500 500 10.19 8.52

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0

0 500 1000 0 500 1000

Measured solar irradiance (w/m2) Measured solar irradiance (w/m2)

(b)

1000 1000 1000

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

r2=.93

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

foba leapForward spikeslab

800 800 800

700 700 700

600 600 600

500 500 500

400 400 400

300 300 300

200 200 200

100 100 100

0 0 0

0 500 1000 0 500 1000 0 500 1000

Measured solar irradiance (w/m2) Measured solar irradiance (w/m2) Measured solar irradiance (w/m2)

900 1000

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

cubist 800

bagEarthGCV

700 69.23 73.08

61.54 65.38

700 57.69

600

39.3 39.65 35.32 36.52 35.58

500 600

500

400

400

300

300

200

200

100

100

0

0

0 500 1000

0 500 1000

Measured solar irradiance (w/m2) Measured solar irradiance (w/m2)

Fig. 8. (a). Correlation between predicted and measured solar irradiance for 11th March, 1 h ahead prediction. (b). Correlation between predicted and measured solar irradiance for

11th March, 24 h ahead prediction. (c). Correlation between predicted and measured solar irradiance for 11th March, 48 h ahead prediction. (d). Correlation between predicted and

measured solar irradiance for 25th June, 1 h ahead prediction. (e). Correlation between predicted and measured solar irradiance for 25th June, 24 h ahead prediction. (f). Correlation

between predicted and measured solar irradiance for 25th June, 48 h ahead prediction. (g). Correlation between predicted and measured solar irradiance for 30th August, 1 h ahead

prediction. (h). Correlation between predicted and measured solar irradiance for 30th August, 24 h ahead prediction. (i). Correlation between predicted and measured solar irradiance

for 30th August, 48 h ahead prediction. (j). Correlation between predicted and measured solar irradiance for 31st December, 1 h ahead prediction. (k). Correlation between predicted

and measured solar irradiance for 31st December, 24 h ahead prediction. (l). Correlation between predicted and measured solar irradiance for 31st December, 48 h ahead prediction.

8

A. Sharma, A. Kakkar Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

(c)

1000 1000 900

Predicted solar irradiance(w/m2) 900 r2=.85 900 r2=.88 800

r2=.88

foba leapForward spikeslab

800 800 700

700 700

600

600 600

500

500 500

400

400 400

300 300

300

200 200 200

0 0 0

0 500 1000 0 500 1000 0 500 1000

Measured solar irreaduance (w/m2) Measured solar irradiance (w/m2) Measured solar irradiance (w/m2)

1000 1000

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

900 r2=.83 900 r2=.85 RMSE Accuracy(%)

800 Cubist 800 bagEarthGCV

75 79.17 75

700 700 66.67

49.55

600 600 45.83 39.24

35.79 38.22 38.75

500 500

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0

0 500 1000 0 500 1000

Measured solar irradiance (w/m2) Measured solar irradiance (w/m2)

(d)

1500 1500 1500

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

r2=.96 r2=.93

r2=.92

leapForward spikeslab

FoBa

1000 1000 1000

0 0 0

0 500 1000 1500 0 500 1000 1500 0 500 1000 1500

Measured solar irradiance (w/m2) Measured solar irradiance (w/m2) Measured solar irradiance (w/m2)

1500 1500

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

r2=.96

cubist bagEarthGCV

67.77 65.38

61.54 61.54 61.54

1000 1000 54.18 55.12

53.01 53.85 46.34

500 500

0 0

0 500 1000 1500 0 500 1000 1500

Measured solar irradiance (w/m2)

Measured solar irradiance (w/m2)

Fig. 8. (continued)

9

A. Sharma, A. Kakkar Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

(e)

1500 1500 1500

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

r2=.94 r2=.92 r2=.94

foba leapForward spikeslab

1000 1000 1000

0 0 0

0 500 1000 1500 0 500 1000 1500 0 500 1000 1500

Measured solar irradiance (w/m2) Measured solar irradiance (w/m2)

Measured solar irradiance (w/m2)

1500 1500

r2=.94

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

cubist bagEarthGCV

77.03

69.2 56.36 69.09 66.93

1000 1000 58.18 54.55

47.27 52.96 45.15

500 500

0 0

0 500 1000 1500 0 500 1000 1500

Measured solar irradiance (w/m2) Measured solar irradiance (w/m2)

(f)

1500 1500 1500

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

foba leapForward spikeslab

0 0

0 500 1000 1500 0

0 500 1000 1500

0 500 1000 1500

Measured solar irradiance (w/m2) Measured solar irradiance (w/m2) Measured solar irradiance (w/m2)

1500 1500

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

cubist bagEarthGCV 75

54.17 60.3

55.69 52.33 54.17

1000 1000 46.9

41.12

29.17 27.96

500 500

0 0

0 500 1000 1500 0 500 1000 1500

Measured solar irradiance (w/m2)

Measured solar irradiance (w/m2)

Fig. 8. (continued)

10

A. Sharma, A. Kakkar Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

(g)

1000 1000 1000

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

r2=.94

r2=.98 r2=.98

foba leapForward spikeslab

0 0 0

0 500 1000 0 500 1000 0 500 1000

Measured solar irradiance (w/m2) Measured solar irradiance (w/m2) Measured solar irradiance (w/m2)

1000 1000

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

cubist bagEarthGCV

83.78 83.78 78.38

72.97 70.27

37.15 42.97

22.97 22.18 26.76

500 500

0 0

0 500 1000 0 500 1000

Measured solar irradiance (w/m2) Measured solar irradiance (w/m2)

(h)

600 600 600

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

FoBa leapForward spikeslab

200

200 200

0

0 0 200 400 600 0

0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600

Measured solar irradiance(w/m2) Measured solar irradiance (w/m2) Measured solar irradiance (w/m2)

600 600

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

r2=.9

Predicted solar irradiance(w/m2)

r2=.85 bagEarthGCV

cubist 88.46

73.08 69.23 73.08

400 400

48 50

39.36

32.38 30.95

23.37

200 200

0 0

0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600

Measured solar irradiance (w/m2) Measured solar irradiance (w/m2)

Fig. 8. (continued)

11

A. Sharma, A. Kakkar Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

(i)

600 600 600

r2=.92

Predicted solar irradiance(w/m2)

r2=.85 r2=.9

500 500 spikeslab

500 FoBa leapForward

100 100

100

0 0

0

0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600

0 200 400 600

Measured solar irradiance (w/m2) Measured solar irradiance (w/m2) Measured solar irradiance (w/m2)

600 600

Predicted solar irradiance(w/m2)

r =.9

500 500 bagEarthGCV 91.67

Cubist

79.17 79.17

75

400 400 66.67

32.18

26.8 28.14

200 200 22.73

100 100

0 0

0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600

Measured solar irradiance (w/m2) Measured solar irradiance (w/m2)

(j)

350

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

350 350

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

300 FoBa

300 leapForward 300

spikeslab

250 250 250

100 100

100

50 50

50

0 0

0 200 400 0

0 200 400

0 200 400

Measured solar irradiance (w/m2) Measured solar irradiance (w/m2) Measured solar irradiance (w/m2)

350

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

350

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

300 Cubist 300 bagEarthGCV

90.64 91 92.86 93.86 92.51

250 250

200 200

150 150

11.45 11.53 10.73 10.3 11.58

100 100

50 50

0 0

0 200 400 0 200 400

Measured solar irradiance (w/m2) Measured solar irradiance (w/m2)

Fig. 8. (continued)

12

A. Sharma, A. Kakkar Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

(k)

140 160 140

r2=.9

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

r2=.91 r2=.92

120 140 leapForward 120

FoBa spikeslab

100 120

100

100

80 80

80

60 60

60

40 40

40

20 20

20

0

0 0

0 50 100 150

0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150

Measured solar irradiance (w/m2) Measured solar irradiance (w/m2) Measured solar irradiance (w/m2)

140 140

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

r2=.92 r2=.95

120 120 bagEarthGCV

Cubist RMSE Accuracy (%)

100 100 91.86 92.8 92.6 93.86

90.86

80 80

60 60

40 40

11.45 11.53 10.73 11.7 11.58

20 20

0 0

0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150

Measured solar irradiance (w/m2) Measured solar irradiance (w/m2)

(l)

120 120 120

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

100 FoBa 100 leapForward 100 spikeslab

80 80 80

60 60 60

40 40 40

20 20 20

0 0 0

0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150

Measured solar irradiance (w/m2) Measured solar irradiance (w/m2) Measured solar irradiance (w/m2)

600 600

Predicted solar irradiance(w/m2)

r2=.92 91.67

500 Cubist 500 bagarthGCV 79.17 79.17

75

400 400 66.67

32.18

26.8 28.14

22.73

200 200

100 100

0 0

0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600

Fig. 8. (continued)

13

A. Sharma, A. Kakkar Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

• 11th March 2016, 1 h ahead forecasting prediction accuracy (83.78%) has been achieved by spikeslab with

.98 correlation coeﬃcient and 22.18 RMSE. The historical days from

For 11th March 2016 in one hour ahead prediction highest 15th August to 14th September ( ± 15 days) from the years 2010–

prediction accuracy (90.2%) has been achieved by bagEarthGCV with 2015 have been used for training and days from 15th August 2016 to

r2 value of 1 and 8.52 RMSE. The historical days from 25th February to 30th August 2016 have been used for testing. Initial past time slots

27th March ( ± 15 days) from the years 2010–2015 have been used for has been taken from 7:00 a.m. and last time slot available is one

training and days from 25th February 2016 to 11th March 2016 have hour ahead of prediction time.

been used for testing. Initial past time slots has been taken from • 30th August 2016, 24 h ahead forecasting

7:00 a.m. and last time slot available is one hour ahead of prediction In 24 h ahead solar forecasting for 30th August 2016, spikeslab

time. oﬀers the maximum prediction accuracy (88.46%) with .92 correla-

tion coeﬃcient and 23.37 RMSE. The historical days from 15th

• 11th March 2016, 24 h ahead forecasting August to 14th September ( ± 15 days) from the years 2010–2015

have been used for training and days from 15th August 2016 to 29th

In 24 h ahead solar forecasting for 11th March 2016, prediction August 2016 have been used for testing. Initial past time slots has

accuracy has been reduced from 90.2% to 79.17% and oﬀered by Cubist been taken from 7:00 a.m. and last time slot available is 24 h ahead

model. The value of correlation coeﬃcient and RMSE has been of prediction time.

observed as .94 and 38.22 respectively. The historical days from 25th • 30th August 2016, 48 h ahead forecasting

February to 27th March ( ± 15 days) from the years 2010–2015 have In 48 h ahead prediction for 30th August 2016, maximum

been used for training and days from 25th February 2016 to 10th accuracy (91.67%) has been gained by spikeslab model with .92

March 2016 have been used for testing. Initial past time slots has been correlation coeﬃcient and 22.73 RMSE. The historical days from

taken from 7:00 a.m. and last time slot available is 24 h ahead of 15th August to 14th September ( ± 15 days) from the years 2010–

prediction time. 2015 have been used for training and days from 15th August 2016 to

28th August 2016 have been used for testing. Initial past time slots

• 11th March 2016, 48 h ahead forecasting has been taken from 7:00 a.m. and last time slot available is 48 h

In 48 h ahead solar forecasting for 11th March 2016, maximum ahead of prediction time.

prediction accuracy (69.09%) has been oﬀered by spikeslab model • 31st December 2016, 1 h ahead forecasting

with .88 correlation coeﬃcient and 45.15 RMSE. The historical days In 1 h ahead solar forecasting for 31st December 2016, max-

from 25th February to 27th March ( ± 15 days) from the years imum accuracy (93.86%) has been given by Cubist model with .92

2010–2015 have been used for training and days from 25th correlation coeﬃcient and 10.3 RMSE. The historical days from 16th

February 2016 to 9th March 2016 have been used for testing. December to 15th January ( ± 15 days) from the years 2010–2015

Initial past time slots has been taken from 7:00 a.m. and last time have been used for training and days from 16th December 2016 to

slot available is 48 h ahead of prediction time. 31st December 2016 have been used for testing. Initial past time

It has been observed that for 11th March 2016 in all three slots has been taken from 7:00 a.m. and last time slot available is

forecasting horizons, performance matrix is satisfactory and eﬀec- one hour ahead of prediction time.

tiveness of a particular model is weather speciﬁc. • 31st December 2016, 24 h ahead forecasting

• 25th June 2016, 1 h ahead forecasting spikeslab model oﬀers highest prediction accuracy (92.7%) for

For 25th June 2016 in 1 h ahead prediction, spikeslab gains the 30th August 2016 in 24 h ahead prediction horizon with .92

highest prediction accuracy (69.09%) with .96 correlation coeﬃcient correlation coeﬃcient and 10.73 RMSE. The historical days from

and 45.15 RMSE. The historical days from 10th June to 10th July ( 16th December to 15th January ( ± 15 days) from the years 2010–

± 15 days) from the years 2010–2015 have been used for training 2015 have been used for training and days from 16th December

and days from 10th June 2016 to 25th June 2016 have been used for 2016 to 30th December 2016 have been used for testing. Initial past

testing. Initial past time slots has been taken from 7:00 a.m. and last time slots has been taken from 7:00 a.m. and last time slot available

time slot available is one hour ahead of prediction time. is 24 h ahead of prediction time.

• 25th June 2016, 24 h ahead forecasting • 31st December 2016, 48 h ahead forecasting

In 24 h ahead prediction of 25th June 2016, Cubist model oﬀers

the highest accuracy (65.38%) with .94 correlation coeﬃcient and For 48 h ahead forecasting, Spikeslab oﬀers highest prediction

46.34 RMSE. The historical days from 10th June to 10th July ( ± 15 accuracy (91.67%) with .94 correlation coeﬃcient and 22.73 RMSE.

days) from the years 2010–2015 have been used for training and The historical days from 16th December to 15th January ( ± 15 days)

days from 10th June 2016 to 24th June 2016 have been used for from the years 2010–2015 have been used for training and days from

testing. Initial past time slots has been taken from 7:00 a.m. and last 16th December 2016 to 29th December 2016 have been used for

time slot available is 24 h ahead of prediction time. testing. Initial past time slots has been taken from 7:00 a.m. and last

• 25th June 2016, 48 h ahead forecasting time slot available is 48 h ahead of prediction time.

In 48 h ahead prediction of 25th March 2016, maximum It has observed from the results obtained in the above section that

prediction accuracy (62.5%) has been achieved by spikeslab model Spikeslab and Cubist model achieves high prediction accuracy than

with .94 correlation coeﬃcient and 53.34 RMSE. The historical days FoBa, leapForward and bagEarthGCV with respect to diﬀerent fore-

from 10th June to 10th July ( ± 15 days) from the years 2010–2015 casting horizons for all seasons of a year.

have been used for training and days from 10th June 2016 to 23rd

June 2016 have been used for testing. Initial past time slots has been 6. Conclusion

taken from 7:00 a.m. and last time slot available is 48 h ahead of

prediction time. The applicability of ﬁve machine learning models, FoBa,

It has been observed that unstable weather conditions (shown in leapForward, spikeslab, Cubist and bagEarthGCV in modelling solar

Fig. 7) and low correlation with past days is the reason of low irradiance prediction has been investigated and evaluated under

prediction accuracy and high RMSE in all forecasting horizon for seasonal eﬀects using the same test platform and datasets. Main

25th June 2016. contribution is performance comparison of models in diﬀerent fore-

• 30th August 2016, 1 h ahead forecasting casting horizons ranging from 1 h ahead to 48 h ahead. The perfor-

In one hour ahead prediction for 30th August 2016, maximum mance has been evaluated by statistical indices correlation coeﬃcient,

14

A. Sharma, A. Kakkar Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

RMSE and prediction accuracy (%) for each model. spikeslab and Cubist model are very promising and stable with respect

Regarding the results obtained in experiment 1, accuracy of a model to diﬀerent forecasting horizons. The prediction accuracy with diﬀerent

depends upon quality of selected data for model training. For diﬀerent forecasting horizons (1 h ahead, 24 h ahead, 48 h ahead) gained by

days of a year (11th March, 25th June, 30th August and 31st spikeslab for 11th March (86.27%, 66.67%, 69.09% respectively), for

December), the performance matrix (r2, RMSE and accuracy) for 25th June (69.09%, 61.54% and 62.5% respectively), 30th August

leapForward (.99, 3.07, 96.08%), Cubist (.98, 35.18, 78.95), (83.78%, 88.46%, 91.67% respectively) and 31st December (92.86%,

bagEarthGCV (.98, 11.27, 89.47%) and FoBa (1, 2.92, 98.21%) 92.8% and 91.67% respectively) are satisfactory and stable. Similarly,

respectively have been obtained. Cubist achieves (84.31%, 79.17%, 58.18% respectively) for 11th March,

In experiment 2, it has been observed that FoBa, leapForward, (58.18%, 65.38%, 54.17% respectively) for 25th June, (78.38%, 69.23%

Cubist performs well with large set of past time slots according to solar and 79.17% respectively) for 30th August and (93.86%, 92.6%, 79.17%

irradiance availability (7:00 a.m. onwards) whereas spikeslab works respectively) for 31st December.

with less past samples. The performance of bagEarthGCV is unpre- The results are evident that solar irradiance forecasting with such

dictable with respect to number of past samples and is iteration machine learning models is recent and productive study in this ﬁeld

speciﬁc. leads to accurate solar forecasting than conventional methods.

The results obtained in experiment 3 shows that results obtained by

Appendix A

Table A1

Comparison of different ambient energy sources.

Solar 17%

– Outdoor 15,000 µW/cm3

150 µW/cm3

- Indoor 6 µW/cm3

Vibration

– Piezoelectric 335 µW/cm3 5%

– Electrostatic 44 µW/cm3 9%

– Electromagnetic 400 µW/cm3 1%

Acoustic noise .003 µW/cm3 at 75 DB

.96 µW/cm3at 100 DB

Temperature gradient 15 µW/cm3at 10 °C 7% at 100 °C

15% at 200 °C

Human power 330 µW/cm3 5–30%

Air ﬂow 7600 at 5 m/s

Pressure variation 17 µW/cm3

Output:F kandw k

LetF (0) = ϕandw(0)

Let k = 0

While true

Let k = k + 1

// Forward step

Leti k = argminimin∝R(w k −1+∝ei )

LetF k = {i k} ∪ F k−1

Letw k = w(Ḟ k )

Letδ k = R(w k −1) − R(w k )

If (δ k≤ε )

k=k−1

break

endif

// Backward step

While true

Letj k = argminj ∈ F k R(w k − wjkej ) Where ej = zero vector ,ej ∈R d

k

Let (δ′>. 5δ )

15

A. Sharma, A. Kakkar Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

break

Let k = k − 1

LetF k = F k +1 − {j k +1 }

Letw k = w(Ḟ k )

end

end

2. For c = 0, . . , k − 1

• Selection of best model among k − c models that possesses highest R 2 and terms as AC+1.

• Continue the process until a target R 2 has been achieved or maximum limit of adding terms has been reached.

[17] Hocaoĝlu FO, Gerek ÖN, Kurban M. A novel 2-D model approach for the prediction

of hourly solar radiation. In: International Work-Conference on ArtiﬁcialNeural

[1] Bhatnagar V, Owende P. Energy harvesting for assistive and mobile applications. Networks, IWANN; 2007. p. 749–756.

Energy Sci Eng 2015;3(3):153–73. [18] Sfetsos A, Coonick AH. Univariate and multivariate forecasting of hourly solar

[2] Ali H, Riaz M, Bilal A, Ullah K. Comparison of energy harvesting techniques in radiation with artiﬁcial intelligence techniques. Sol Energy 2000;68(2):169–78.

wireless body area network. Int J Multidiscip Sci Eng 2016;7(6):20–4. [19] Quaiyum S, Rahman S, Rahman S. Application of artiﬁcial neural network in

[3] NREL: MIDC/SRRL Baseline measurement system, 〈http://www.nrel.gov/midc/ forecasting solar irradiance and sizing of photovoltaic cell for standalone systems in

srrl_bms/〉. [Accessed 4 January 2017]. Bangladesh. Int J Comp Appl 2011;32:51–6.

[4] Pyrometer, 〈http://www.kippzonen.com/Product/15/CMP22-Pyranometer/〉. [20] Belaid S, Mellit A. Prediction of daily and mean monthly global solar radiation

[Accessed 2 January 2017]. using support vector machine in an arid climate. Energy Convers Manag

[5] Inman RH, Pedro HT, Coimbra CF. Solar forecasting methods for renewable energy 2016;118:105–18.

integration. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2013;39(6):535–76. [21] Jiang H, Dong Y. A nonlinear support vector machine model with hard penalty

[6] Banos R, Manzano-Agugliaro F, Montoya FG, Gil C, Alcayde A, Gómez J. function based on glowworm swarm optimization for forecasting daily global solar

Optimization methods applied to renewable and sustainable energy: a review. radiation. Energy Convers Manag 2016;126:991–1002.

Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15(4):1753–66. [22] Boata RS, Gravila P. Functional fuzzy approach for forecasting daily global solar

[7] Christensen-Dalsgaard J. Physics of solar-like oscillations. Sol Phys irradiation. Atmos Res 2012;112:79–88.

2004;220(2):137–68. [23] Zhang T. Adaptive forward-backward greedy algorithm for learning sparse repre-

[8] Marquez R, Coimbra CF. Forecasting of global and direct solar irradiance using sentations. IEEE Trans Inform Theory 2011;57(7):4689–708.

stochastic learning methods, ground experiments and the NWS database. Sol [24] Zhang T. Adaptive forward-backward greedy algorithm for sparse learning with

Energy 2011;85(5):746–56. linear models. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS;

[9] Li J, Ward JK, Tong J, Collins L, Platt G. Machine learning for solar irradiance 2009. p. 1921–28.

forecasting of photovoltaic system. Renew Energy 2016;90:542–53. [25] Miller A. Subset selection in regression, 2nd ed. CRC Press; 2002.

[10] Maier HR, Dandy GC. Neural networks for the prediction and forecasting of water [26] Zou H, Hastie T. Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net. J R Stat

resources variables: a review of modelling issues and applications. Environ Modell Soc B 2005;67(2):301–20.

Softw 2000;15(1):101–24. [27] Ishwaran H, Kogalur UB, Rao JS. spikeslab: prediction and variable selection using

[11] Wang L, Kisi O, Zounemat-Kermani M, Salazar GA, Zhu Z, Gong W. Solar radiation spike and slab regression. R J 2010;2(2):68–73.

prediction using diﬀerent techniques: model evaluation and comparison. Renew [28] Quinlan JR. Combining instance-based and model-based learning. In: 10th

Sustain Energy Rev 2016;2016(61):384–97. International Conference on Machine Learning; 1993. p. 236–43.

[12] Orﬁla A, Ballester JL, Oliver R, Alvarez A, Tintoré J. Forecasting the solar cycle with [29] Quinlan JR. C4. 5: programs for machine learning. Elsevier; 2014.

genetic algorithms. Astron Astrophys 2002;386(1):313–8. [30] Wang Y, Witten IH. Inducing Models Trees for Continuous Classes. In: 9th

[13] Zeng J, Qiao W. Short-term solar power prediction using a support vector machine. European Conference on Machine Learning; 1997. p. 128–37.

Renew Energy 2013;52:118–27. [31] Friedman JH. Multivariate adaptive regression splines. Ann Stat 1991;19(1):1–67.

[14] Chen SX, Gooi HB, Wang MQ. Solar radiation forecast based on fuzzy logic and [32] Balshi MS, McGuire AD, Duﬀy P, Flannigan M, Walsh J, Melillo J. Assessing the

neural networks. Renew Energy 2013;60:195–201. response of area burned to changing climate in western boreal North America using

[15] Mellit A, Pavan AM. A 24-h forecast of solar irradiance using artiﬁcial neural a Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines (MARS) approach. Glob Change Biol

network: application for performance prediction of a grid-connected PV plant at 2009;15(3):578–600.

Trieste, Italy. Sol Energy 2010;84(5):807–21.

[16] Kemmoku Y, Orita S, Nakagawa S, Sakakibara T. Daily insolation forecasting using

16

- A Guide to Regression Analysis Using MS ExcelUploaded bypalak32
- Regression With SASUploaded byAkshay Mathur
- Century National BanksUploaded byAsad Msa
- Predicting Customer BenefitUploaded bySand Jay
- The impact of fiscal decentralization and budgetary deconcentration on regional disparities in MoroccoUploaded byIOSRjournal
- hasil TQMUploaded byAndhis Si Guru Sukses
- Statistical Based Method Data Mining AlgorithmUploaded byELIZABETH
- Prediction of Repair & Maintenance Costs of Diesel EngineUploaded byAnonymous pKuPK3zU
- Linear RegressionUploaded byJosue Perez
- Gaspipeline Case StudyUploaded bydai_dai
- Determinants of Total Consumption in SudanUploaded byDonald Patrick
- Reading 13Uploaded byTmthyB
- 2a Linear Regression 18MayUploaded byVageesha Shantha Veerabhadra Swamy
- Studenmund_Ch03_v2Uploaded byAnand Agarwal
- Hossein i 183Uploaded byElaine Johnson
- out (2)Uploaded byclaudia_claudia1111
- Read Me Instructions - Machine Learning Mining Industry.docxUploaded byMiljan Kovacevic
- An Intelligent Clustering Forecasting System Based on Change-Point Detection and Aritificial Neural Networks - Application to Financial Economics.pdfUploaded bymuhammadriz
- M17_Part1_Tier1aUploaded bySagar Srinivas
- Final TestUploaded byAlex Bamford
- Math (Regression Theory)Uploaded byAlina Borisenko
- exer9Uploaded byRakesh Yadav
- FormulaUploaded bytengku
- 13_78AmericanBanksUploaded byOmar Chaudhry
- Assignment - Correlation & RegressionUploaded byirfanrizvi
- Tian 2015Uploaded byNguyenHuy
- DDA2013 Week4 WindowsExcel2003 RegressionUploaded bynoelje
- agpoon pe4 acei 2 2 evidence (no name)Uploaded byapi-243096365
- regresioni shumfishtUploaded byJumbo Smith
- aamj_17.1.8Uploaded byMario Martinez

- Visual Aircraft RecognitionUploaded byBurt Gummer
- Lab 3 Report Information Spring 2019 (1).pdfUploaded byRahul Makade
- A.pdfUploaded byRahul Makade
- Introduction to Basic Manufacturing Processes and Workshop TechnologyUploaded byMuhammad Zamurd Shehzad
- Latest SCI PaperUploaded byRahul Makade
- Assignment No 1Uploaded byRahul Makade
- Jet Engine SpecificationUploaded byRahul Makade
- adaagshsh.pdfUploaded byRahul Makade
- Climate ImpUploaded byRam Aravind
- Highway Power Generation Using Low Cost Vertical Axis Wind Turbine [VAWT]Uploaded byRahul Makade
- Presentation 1Uploaded byRahul Makade
- Optimization of Model Wind-tunnel Contraction Using CfdUploaded byRahul Makade
- Obe Aero 2104Uploaded byRahul Makade
- Aeronautical Engg Syllabus SUKUploaded byRahul Makade
- Glycerol Properties&UsesUploaded bypmarechal
- FORTRAN is a Complied LanguageUploaded byRahul Makade
- SmokeUploaded byRahul Makade
- Wind TunnelUploaded byRahul Makade

- Simple Direct Torque Control 01283594Uploaded bymkashkooli_scribd
- Analytics With R - Course ContentsUploaded byHarikrishna Bajjuri
- real time human pose recognitionUploaded byjebin
- Rouen Simple MklUploaded byAnonymous PsEz5kGVae
- EMOTIV EPOC NBACK.pdfUploaded byPaasol
- 2392b1fede7e4d25412Uploaded bysdafgasdfa
- Dynamic Time Warping Approach for User Authentication of Smartphones Using Single-handed ShakesUploaded byEditor IJRITCC
- Identification of Paper Currency Techniques: A SurveyUploaded byIJSTE
- Final_Report.docxUploaded byS Jawad Ul Hasan
- SSRN-id2227333 - Give Me Some CreditUploaded bySempu
- An overview of Pattern RecognitionUploaded byElie Saliba
- http://balkanmine2017.comUploaded byMikan Radenko Mikanović
- Instructor SupportUploaded byscribdsiv
- g19p1Uploaded bytriplewalker
- IEEEFYP2018 Poster Track2 NoorHanaLaili Binti AbdulBasariUploaded byNoorHana Laili Abdul Basari
- SPSS Predictive AnalyticsUploaded byRuth Nelson
- Information Theory for Gabor Feature SelectionUploaded byMehmet Ada
- Brain Tumor Detection using PCA and NN with GLCMUploaded byIJRASETPublications
- Deep FisherNet for Object ClassificationUploaded byJan Hula
- prakash2017.pdfUploaded byJun Jovel Pepito
- ML SyllabusUploaded byOugni Chakraborty
- PetUploaded byAhmed Rhif
- Handwritten Gurumukhi Character Recognition Using Zoning Density and Background Directional Distribution FeaturesUploaded byKartarsiddharth
- ALIZE_3(1).pdfUploaded byTran Trung
- SvmUploaded byPavan Reddy
- 2002-A Comparison of Methods for Multicalss Support Vector MachinesUploaded bythanhduc880
- Face Detection in Images- Neural Networks & Support Vector MachinesUploaded bySuleman Jamil
- Space Allocation in the Retail IndustryUploaded byIshaan Talwar
- Course Ra Machine LearningUploaded byc3m3gyanesh
- vwap14Uploaded byvvvpnsc