Volume 8 • Issue 2 • PP: 01–06 • 2024
Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Models for Daytime Power Generation Prediction
Open Access & Copyright
© 2024 The Author(s). Published by ASPG. This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
View PDF Abstract
This paper proposes to evaluate how different machine-learning techniques can be used to predict daytime power generation based on the “Daily Power Generation Data” data set. The six models include Random Forest Regressor, Decision Tree Regressor, Nearest Neighbors, Linear Regression, MLP Regressor, and SVR, and their performance is assessed using multiple metrics. The Random Forest Regressor achieves the lowest Mean Squared Error (MSE), 3.57E-06, among the three machine-learning models. The introduction highlights the role of precise planning in the power market, and the following sections describe the topic mathematically. The table of performance results explains why the Random Forest Regressor is the superior full-proof model, with the lowest MSE, highest explained variance, and great resistance to outlying samples. The paper thus gives useful evaluation criteria for choosing the best model because the Random Forest Regressor achieves the highest performance metrics.
Keywords
References
[1] E. M. Almetwally and M. A. Meraou, “Application of environmental data with new extension of Nadarajah-Haghighi distribution,” Computational Journal of Math-ematical and Statistical Sciences, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 26–41, 2022.
[2] C. Scott, M. Ahsan, and A. Albarbar, “Machine learning for forecasting a photovoltaic (PV) generation system,” Energy, vol. 278, p. 127807, 2023.
[3] S. K. Towfek, “Navigating the storm: Cutting-edge risk mitigation and analysis for volatile markets,” Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Metaheuristics, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 36–44, 2023.
[4] S. K. Towfek, “A semantic approach for extracting the medical association rules,” Journal of Artificial Intel-ligence and Metaheuristics, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 46–52, 2023.
[5] A. Sedai, R. Dhakal, S. Gautam, A. Dhamala, A. Bilbao, Q. Wang, A. Wigington, and S. Pol, “Performance anal-ysis of statistical, machine learning and deep learning models in long-term forecasting of solar power produc-tion,” Forecasting, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 256–284, 2023.
[6] R. Wazirali, E. Yaghoubi, M. S. S. Abujazar, R. Ahmad, and A. H. Vakili, “State-of-the-art review on energy and load forecasting in microgrids using artificial neural net-works, machine learning, and deep learning techniques,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 225, p. 109792, 2023.
[7] E.-S. El-Kenawy, A. Ibrahim, S. Mirjalili, Y.-D. Zhang, S. Elnazer et al., “Optimized ensemble algorithm for predicting metamaterial antenna parameters,” Computers, Materials & Continua, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 4989–5003, 2022.
[8] D. S. Khafaga, A. Ibrahim, E.-S. M. El-Kenawy, A. A. Abdelhamid, F. K. Karim et al., “An Al-Biruni earth radius optimization-based deep convolutional neural net-work for classifying monkeypox disease,” Diagnostics, vol. 12, no. 11, p. Article 11, 2022.
[9] A. Djaafari, A. Ibrahim, N. Bailek, K. Bouchouicha, M. A. Hassan et al., “Hourly predictions of direct nor-mal irradiation using an innovative hybrid LSTM model for concentrating solar power projects in hyper-arid re-gions,” Energy Reports, vol. 8, pp. 15 548–15 562, 2022.
[10] H. AlEisa, E.-S. El-Kenawy, A. Alhussan, M. Saber, A. Abdelhamid et al., “Transfer learning for chest X-rays diagnosis using dipper throated algorithm,” Com-puters, Materials & Continua, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 2371–2387, 2022.
[11] E.-S. M. El-Kenawy, N. Khodadadi, S. Mirjalili, T. Makarovskikh, M. Abotaleb et al., “Metaheuristic optimization for improving weed detection in wheat im-ages captured by drones,” Mathematics, vol. 10, no. 23, p. Article 23, 2022.
[12] A. A. Abdelhamid, S. K. Towfek, N. Khodadadi, A. A. Alhussan, D. S. Khafaga et al., “Waterwheel plant al-gorithm: A novel metaheuristic optimization method,” Processes, vol. 11, no. 5, p. Article 5, 2023.
[13] D. Khafaga, E.-S. El-Kenawy, F. Karim, S. Alshetewi, A. Ibrahim et al., “Optimized weighted ensemble using dipper throated optimization algorithm in metamaterial antenna,” Computers, Materials & Continua, vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 5771–5788, 2022.
[14] S. Bhavsar, R. Pitchumani, and M. A. Ortega-Vazquez, “Machine learning enabled reduced-order scenario gen-eration for stochastic analysis of solar power forecasts,” Applied Energy, vol. 293, p. 116964, 2021.
[15] S. Ding, H. Zhang, Z. Tao, and R. Li, “Integrating data decomposition and machine learning methods: An em-pirical proposition and analysis for renewable energy generation forecasting,” Expert Systems with Applica-tions, vol. 204, p. 117635, 2022.
[16] D. Mukherjee, S. Chakraborty, and S. Ghosh, “Power system state forecasting using machine learning tech-niques,” Electrical Engineering, vol. 104, no. 1, pp. 283–305, 2022.
[17] Kaggle, “Daily power generation data,” Kaggle dataset.
[18] S. Alam and N. Yao, “The impact of preprocessing steps on the accuracy of machine learning algorithms in sentiment analysis,” Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 319–335, 2019.
[19] C. Janiesch, P. Zschech, and K. Heinrich, “Machine learning and deep learning,” Electronic Markets, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 685–695, 2021.
[20] L. Xue, Y. Liu, Y. Xiong, Y. Liu, X. Cui et al., “A data-driven shale gas production forecasting method based on the multi-objective random forest regression,” Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, vol. 196, p. 107801, 2021.
Cite This Article
Choose your preferred format
Publisher's Note
The statements, opinions, and data presented in this article are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of ASPG, the journal, or its editors. ASPG and the editors disclaim responsibility for any harm arising from the use of any ideas, methods, instructions, or products described in this article, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law.