The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of machine learning methods for photovoltaic power forecasting based on numerical weather prediction
Open accessAbstract
The increase of the worldwide installed photovoltaic (PV) capacity and the intermittent nature of the solar resource highlights the importance of power forecasting for the grid integration of the technology. This study compares 24 machine learning models for deterministic day-ahead power forecasting based on numerical weather predictions (NWP), tested for two-year-long 15-min resolution datasets of 16 PV plants in Hungary. The effects of the predictor selection and the benefits of the hyperparameter tuning are also evaluated. The results show that the two most accurate models are kernel ridge regression and multilayer perceptron with an up to 44.6% forecast skill score over persistence. Supplementing the basic NWP data with Sun position angles and statistically processed irradiance values as the inputs of the learning models results in a 13.1% decrease of the root mean square error (RMSE), which underlines the importance of the predictor selection. The hyperparameter tuning is essential to exploit the full potential of the models, especially for the less robust models, which are prone to under or overfitting without proper tuning. The overall best forecasts have a 13.9% lower RMSE compared to the baseline scenario of using linear regression. Moreover, the power forecasts based on only daily average irradiance forecasts and the Sun position angles have only a 1.5% higher RMSE than the best scenario, which demonstrates the effectiveness of machine learning even for limited data availability. The results of this paper can support both researchers and practitioners in constructing the best data-driven techniques for NWP-based PV power forecasting.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization
Kingma, D. P., & Ba, J. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1412.6980 · Cited by 98,946
Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python
Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Müller, A., Nothman, J., Louppe, G., et al. (2012) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1201.0490 · Cited by 71,016
Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine
Friedman, J. H. (2001) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1013203451 · Cited by 30,731
A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting
Freund, Y., & Schapire, R. E. (1997) · Journal of Computer and System Sciences · doi:10.1006/jcss.1997.1504 · Cited by 20,466
Regularization Paths for Generalized Linear Models via Coordinate Descent
Friedman, J., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v033.i01 · Cited by 19,927
Libsvm : A library for support vector machines
Ferrari, V. (2008) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 10,122
Efron, B., Hastie, T., Johnstone, I., & Tibshirani, R. (2004) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/009053604000000067 · Cited by 9,357
Geurts, P., Ernst, D., & Wehenkel, L. (2006) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/s10994-006-6226-1 · Cited by 9,300
Practical Bayesian Optimization of Machine Learning Algorithms
Snoek, J., Larochelle, H., & Adams, R. P. (2012) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1206.2944 · Cited by 6,691
Metadata
- Authors
- Markovics, D., & Mayer, M. J.
- Venue
- Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-06
- Volume
- 161
- Pages
- 112364
- ISSN
- 1364-0321 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4220726206
- Cited by
- 490
- References
- 55
- FWCI
- 29.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of machine learning methods for photovoltaic power forecasting based on numerical weather prediction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112364
- The paper
- Markovics, D., & Mayer, M. J. (2022). Comparison of machine learning methods for photovoltaic power forecasting based on numerical weather prediction. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112364
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.