首页> 外文期刊>Renewable energy >Assessment of machine learning techniques for deterministic and probabilistic intra-hour solar forecasts
【24h】

Assessment of machine learning techniques for deterministic and probabilistic intra-hour solar forecasts

机译:评估机器学习技术以进行确定性和概率的小时内太阳预报

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

This work compares the performance of machine learning methods (k-nearest-neighbors (kNN) and gradient boosting (GB)) in intra-hour forecasting of global (GHI) and direct normal (DNI) irradiances. The models predict the GHI and DNI and the corresponding prediction intervals. The data used in this work include pyranometer measurements of GHI and DNI and sky images. Point forecasts are evaluated using bulk error metrics while the performance of the probabilistic forecasts are quantified using metrics such as Prediction Interval Coverage Probability (PICP), Prediction Interval Normalized Averaged Width (PINAW) and the Continuous Ranked Probability Score (CRPS). Graphical verification displays like reliability diagram and rank histogram are used to assess the probabilistic forecasts. Results show that the machine learning models achieve significant forecast improvements over the reference model. The reduction in the RMSE translates into forecasting skills ranging between 8% and 24%, and 10% and 30% for the GHI and DNI testing set, respectively. CRPS skill scores of 42% and 62% are obtained respectively for GHI and DNI probabilistic forecasts. Regarding the point forecasts, the GB method performs better than the kNN method when sky image features are included in the model. Conversely, for probabilistic forecasts the kNN exhibits rather good performance. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
机译:这项工作在小时(GHI)和直接法线(DNI)辐照度预报中比较了机器学习方法(k近邻(kNN)和梯度增强(GB))的性能。该模型预测GHI和DNI以及相应的预测间隔。这项工作中使用的数据包括GHI和DNI的日射强度计测量值以及天空图像。使用批量误差度量来评估点预测,而使用诸如预测间隔覆盖率(PICP),预测间隔归一化平均宽度(PINAW)和连续排名概率得分(CRPS)等度量来量化概率预测的性能。图形验证显示(如可靠性图和等级直方图)用于评估概率预测。结果表明,与参考模型相比,机器学习模型实现了显着的预测改进。 RMSE的降低转化为GHI和DNI测试集的预测技能分别介于8%和24%之间以及10%和30%之间。 GHI和DNI概率预测的CRPS技能得分分别为42%和62%。关于点预测,当模型中包含天空图像特征时,GB方法的性能优于kNN方法。相反,对于概率预测,kNN表现出相当好的性能。 (C)2018 Elsevier Ltd.保留所有权利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号