Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 2254–2269

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

Forecasting daily global solar irradiance generation using machine learning MARK
⁎
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
Recent developments in wireless sensor technology incorporate
self-powered sensors to autonomously operate for real time parameter
updates. Various energy harvesting technologies provide different
kinds of widely distributed endless supply including solar light, piezo-
electricity, RF, physical motions and electromagnetic fields. Solar
energy with photovoltaic cell modules has been considered as the best
ambient source because of high power density (15 mW/cm3), adequate
conversion efficiency (17%) and compatibility with integrated circuit
technology. Table A1 summarizes the power density and conversion
efficiency of different sources [1,2] and given in Appendix A.
izons. With the concern of practical use, Fig. 2 shows different
forecasting horizons and related activities in solar based power
systems.
Very short term forecasting is essential for real time monitoring of
battery status. Short term forecasting is critical for decision making
activities including unit commitment etc. Medium term forecasting is
effective for maintenance scheduling and spinning of power unit. Long
term forecasting is useful in planning the network operations. Precise
solar forecasting ensure reliable and stable rechargeable sensor opera-
tion with improved control algorithms for battery backup. Different
forecasting methodologies have been developed for solar irradiance
forecasting task and summarized in Section 1.2.

1.1. Requirement of solar irradiance forecasting 1.2. Existing forecasting methodologies

Solar power based systems are restrained by different metrological
conditions, seasonal variability, geographical constraints and intra-
hour solar intensity. Fig. 1 exhibits monthly statistics based global solar
radiation on horizontal surface from January to December 2016.
Dataset has been adapted from solar radiation research laboratory
(SRRL) under national renewable energy laboratory (NREL) [3] with
CMP-22 pyrometer as solar radiation sensor [4]. Fig. 1(a) shows the
seasonal variation of solar irradiance and Fig. 1(b) exhibits the
maximum and minimum solar intensity with respect to different
months of the year. Solar forecasting diminishes the effect of resource
variability and uncertainty by targeting different forecast time hor-
Dependency on metrological conditions causes renewable energy
resources to be inconsistent. Under this constraint, reliable solar
irradiance forecast on different time horizons is essential for develop-
ing and utilizing solar energy based systems. As a sequel, research on
solar irradiance forecasting has been germinated along with the areas
of forecasting theory [5,6], solar physics [7], stochastic processes [8]
and machine learning [9]. Although all these methods have not the
same accuracy with respect to target forecasting horizon, the char-
acteristic of machine learning models to trace relation between input
and output parameters allow this methodology to be successful in
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
Available online 24 August 2017
1364-0321/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Sharma, A. Kakkar Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 2254–2269

Nomenclature D Historical days

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
initial step for machine learning based models as pre-processing of
data has been required with big datasets.
Neural networks (NN) [10,11], genetic algorithm (GA) [12], sup-
port vector machine (SVM) [13] and fuzzy based models [14] are
extensively used machine learning based methodologies in solar
forecasting. A multilayer perceptron (MLP) model with daily solar
irradiance and average air temperature as input parameters has been
proposed by Mellit et al. [15] for 24 h ahead forecasting. Kemmoku
et al. [16] proposed a multistage neural network by considering various
metrological parameters of past days and mean atmospheric pressure
that is predicted by another neural network for the prediction of next
day. Hocaoglu et al. [17] integrate multistage neural network concept
with time delay neural network models for hourly solar irradiance
forecasting. A comparison of neural network based models and
clearness index based time series models has been given by Sfetsos
et al. [18]. They consider daily ambient temperature, atmospheric
pressure and wind speed as inputs to neural network based model for
hourly prediction. Main constraint with neural network based models
is the designing of flawless network structure with optimal values of
different parameters. Quaiyum et al. [19] introduces endogenous and
exogenous models that work on past solar irradiance and different
weather parameters respectively. They also integrate genetic algorithm
with neural networks for parameter optimization. But similar to neural
networks, it is hard to trace the dynamic behaviour of the atmosphere,
mathematically. Belaid et al. [20] proposed a SVM based approach for
one step ahead solar forecasting with extraterrestrial solar irradiance,
sunshine duration and ambient temperature as input parameters.
Jiang et al. [21] presented SVM approach with hard penalty function
to select optimized number of radial basis function. They also imple-
ment glowworm swarm optimization algorithm to choose optimal
parameters for forecasting. Boata et al. [22] introduced autoregressive
fuzzy algorithm based model for dollar prediction by estimating daily
clearness index.
1.3. Contribution
In proposed work, multiple machine learning based models has
been applied to track effective solar forecasting models and analyse
prediction accuracy of each model. Machine learning has been applied
on historical solar intensity observations as training dataset to calculate
future solar irradiance for different forecasting horizons irrespective of
seasonal variation and input parameters availability.
In Section 2, modelling of machine learning based models for solar
irradiance prediction has been discussed. Description of database has
been presented in Section 3. Equations for performance indicators has

1200 Min Avg Max

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).

Real time Unit commitment Maintenance Network operation

Application monitoring scheduling planning

Very short term Short term Medium term Long term

Forecasting
horizon

Few seconds to 48 to 72 hours One week ahead Months or years

Time steps
minutes ahead ahead ahead

Fig. 2. Forecasting horizon and concerned applications.

2255
A. Sharma, A. Kakkar
been summarized in Section 4. Section 5 includes simulation results
and discussions. The proposed work has been concluded in Section 6.
2. Solar irradiance forecasting platform
2.1. Machine learning methodology
All machine learning based algorithms works to trace a predictive
model that estimates a particular type of data with high accuracy. Large
dataset is essential for the learning algorithm to understand the
behaviour of the system. Fig. 3 exhibits the machine learning metho-
dology. First step for machine learning based system is data procure-
ment. Collected data has been divided from different prospective and
summarizes in useful information. The steps included in this process is
data cleansing and data segregation. Data has been segregated in three
disjoint sets, training, testing and blind set. Training dataset has been
applied for model training and testing dataset has been used for model
optimization and evaluation. Blind dataset has been used for cross
validation.
2.2. Machine learning models
In proposed work, machine learning based time series models
which are based on historically observed solar irradiance as input
parameter have been used for solar forecasting called endogenous
forecasting. Fig. 4 summarizes five forecasting models used in pro-
posed work with their methodologies and explained in following
section.
2.2.1. FoBa (Adaptive forward – backward greedy algorithm)
FoBa is based on forward greedy algorithm with adaptive backward
steps [23,24]. The objective is to remove any error caused by earlier
forward steps and avoid large number of basis functions. Adapted
backward steps ensure that any backward greedy step will not erase
gain made in forward steps. Consider n input vectors
xi ∈ R d (i = 1, . . . , n ),d feature vectors f j ∈ R n(j = 1, . . . , d ) with out-
put variables y=R n . Each f j is equivalent to jth feature component of xi
that corresponds to f j, i = xi, j . With sparsity parameter k , non convex L 0
regularization can be written as:
ẇ = argmin w ∈ R d R(w )
(1)
Where ‖ w ‖ 0 ≤ k , w = [w1, w2,. . . ,wd ] ∈ R d and for least square regres-
sion, R(w ) is a real valued cost function and calculated as:
Data
Data
Procurement Mining
Data Cleansing
Data Segregation
Fig. 3. Flow diagram of machine learning methodology.
2256
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 2254–2269
2
R(w ) = n−1 ∑j wfj j −y
2 (2)
A backward step has been taken when the increase of cost function
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
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
procedure for FoBa [23] has been listed in Appendix B.
2.2.2. leapForward
It performs exhaustive search using match-select-action cycle to for
tracing best subset of predicting variables [25]. Selecting subset refers
to finding a small set of independent variables that offers less
prediction error in predicting the dependent variables. Rules that can
identify finite set of ordered variables that can satisfy their predicates
are selected. When one n -sets are selected that particular rule has been
fired. This procedure continues until no more rules can be fired. The
key point of leap algorithm is lazy subset selection i.e. subset emerges
only when they are required. This perspective increases rule execution
efficiency and reduces space complexity of leaps algorithm.
When a variable has been selected or deleted, a timestamp to that
element has been placed on the stack that uphold the timestamp
ordering of variables. The most recent added variable has been placed
on the top of the stack and select first during rule execution cycle. This
variable is called dominant object and originate the selection predicates
of all rules in an ordered way. When all the rules have been examined,
that dominant object has been popped up from the stack. When a
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
Appendix C.
2.2.3. Spikeslab
The spikeslab model [26,27] implements rescaled spikes and slab
algorithms using a continuous bimodal prior. The model has been
implemented in three stages shown in Fig. 5 and listed below:
In step 1, filtering process carries top nF variables where n is the
sample size and F > 0 is the user defined fraction. Rest of the variables
are filtered out to reduce the dimension. The posterior mean coefficient
has been calculated using Gibbs sampling for appropriate ordering of
variables. Step 2 refit the model using only those variables those are not
filtered in step 1. Gibbs sampler has been used to for model fitting and
returns posterior mean values referred to as Bayesian model averaged
(BMA) estimate. Generalized elastic net (gnet) in step 3 has been used
Model Model
Testing
Training
Train
Model
Training Model optimization
Set and Evaluation
Testing
Set
Cross validation
Blind
Set
A. Sharma, A. Kakkar Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 2254–2269

Machine learning Supervised learning Regression

FoBa leapForward spikeslab Cubist bagEarthGCV

Adaptive forward Regression subset spikes and slab Rule based Multivariate adaptive
backward greedy selection algorithm multivariate linear regression splines
algorithm modelling

Fig. 4. Machine learning based models.

for variable selection. Variables obtained from restricted BMA from
step 2 have been classified in groups. Grouping force variables to share
a common regularization parameter. There is no limit on number of
groups. A variable that does not appear in the list will be assigned to a
default group that has its own group specific regularization parameter.
2.2.4. Cubist model
Cubist was developed by Quinlan [28] for inducing trees for
regression models. Cubist is a rule based predictive model where each
rule carries a multivariate linear model. These models works on the
predictions of previous splits [29,30]. When a case satisfies all rule
based conditions, the associated model has been used for prediction.
Fig. 6 shows the flow diagram of cubist model. In first stage recursive
partitioning (divide and conquer) of training cases has been exercised
to generate piecewise linear model in the form of regression based
model tree. Each training case has a set of attributes and associated
target value.
The basic approach is to generate a model that relates target values
of the training cases to their values of other attributes. A splitting
criteria has been used to minimize the intra subset variation in the class
values instead of maximizing the information gain at each interior
node. The splitting criteria is based on computing standard deviation of
target values of the cases in T. The attribute that minimizes standard
deviation has been chosen. If sd (Ti ) has been considered as standard
deviation of the target of the cases in Ti then reduction in standard
deviation has been calculated as:
Ti
Error = sd (T ) − ∑ × sd (Ti )
i
T (3)
Where T is the set of cases that reach the node and T1, T2 … are
selected cases after splitting the node according to chosen attributes. At
the second stage Pruning has been carried out by estimating the
expected error that will be experienced at each node for test data. Each
linear model is simplified by eliminating parameters in order to reduce
its estimated error. Parameters are eliminated one by one so long as the
error estimate decreases. Each internal node of the tree has both a
simplified model and a model subtree. The one with lowest estimated
error has chosen.
Finally, smoothing process has been carried out to compensate
abrupt discontinuities between adjacent linear models of a pruned tree.
A predicted value from a model tree has been adjusted to take account
models at the nodes along the path from root to that leaf. The
calculation is as follows:
n × Predicted ′+k × Predicted
Predicted′′ =
n+k (4)
Where Predicted′′ is the prediction passed on the next higher nodes,
Predicted′ is prediction passed to this node from below, Predicted is the
predicted value at this node, n is the number of training cases that
reach the node below and k is a constant.
2.2.5. BagEarthGCV
It is a non-parametric regression technique and based on multi-
variate adaptive regression splines (MARS) [31,32]. Open source
implementations of MARS are termed as Earth as MARS term is
licenced to Salford systems. The MARSplines model has been imple-
mented by Eq. (5):
U
f (x ) = ω0 + ∑ ωuhu(x )
u =1 (5)
f (x ) is predicted as a function of predictor variables x , intercept
parameter ω0 and weighted sum of one or more basis functions. Each
ωu is a constant coefficient.
Bagging: It is a model averaging approach that computes multiple
version of a predictor and use them to derive an aggregate predictor.
Multiple versions has been generated by making bootstrap replicates of
training set and using it as a new training set. Bagging improves
stability, prediction accuracy and avoid overfitting of different machine
learning approaches.
Pruning: After forward stepwise selection of basis functions, a
backward procedure called pruning has been applied to remove those
basis functions those are least concerned with increase in goodness-of-
fit. The generalized cross validation error is a measure of goodness-of-
fit that considers residual error together with model complexity and
formulated as:
N
∑i =1 (yi − f (x )i )2
GCV = whereC = 1+cd
C
(1− N )2 (6)
In Eq. (6), N signifies number of cases in dataset, d is degree of
freedom and corresponds to number of independent basis functions.

Filtering Model averaging Variable selection

Dimension reduction Bayesian model Generalized elastic

averaged net
Fig. 5. Flow diagram of spikeslab.

2257
A. Sharma, A. Kakkar Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 2254–2269

Decision tree induction

Training cases, T algorithm for tree Tree pruning Smoothing
building

Fig. 6. Flow diagram of cubist model.

3. Description of database N ∑ x tActualx Predicted

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

31st December, 2016

Time: 6:00 - 18:00
30th August, 2016

Time: 6:00 - 18:00

11 March, 2016

25th June, 2016

200

0
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61
Time (61 hours)

Fig. 7. Seasonal variation in solar irradiance with days of a year.

2258
A. Sharma, A. Kakkar Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 2254–2269

because of cloudy weather conditions, data on 31st December pos-

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

5.1.2. Prediction accuracy with respect to initial past time slots

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

been considered for performance evaluation. Simulation results in

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)

66.07% and 98.21% respectively) with past samples taken from

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

7:00 a.m. onwards. The methodology of leapForward model has least

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

June and 31st December, maximum accuracy (78.38%, 68.42%,

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

model achieves high prediction accuracy with large past sample

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

August and 31st December maximum accuracies are 90.2%, 78.95%,

.98
.96

.98
.96

.98
.96

.99
.98

.98
.96
10

84.21% and 85.71% respectively. The prediction accuracy (94.12%,

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

but consideration of past samples are unpredictable and is iteration

base.
accuracy

accuracy

accuracy

accuracy

accuracy
RMSE

RMSE

RMSE

RMSE

RMSE

5.1.3. Prediction accuracy with respect to forecasting horizon and

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

with respect to different forecasting horizons, simulation experiments

spikeslab

Cubist

were run for 1 h ahead, 24 h ahead and 48 h ahead solar forecasting in

Season
Table 1

Foba

experiment 3. Fig. 8 reports the performance indicators in terms of

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

2259
 Table 2
Comparison results of five forecasting models for selection initial past time slots for forecasting (Experiment 2).

Season 11 March (spring) 25 June (summer)

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

r2 .85 .96 .94 .96 .96 .92 .96 .9 .9 .92

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

Season 30 August (monsoon) 31 December (winter)

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

2260
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 82 (2018) 2254–2269
A. Sharma, A. Kakkar Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 2254–2269

(a)

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

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)

r2=1 RMSE Accuracy(%)

900 r2=.98 900
800 Cubist bagEarthGCV 88.24 90.2
800 86.27 84.31
700 700 62.75

600 600 25.79

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)

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

r2=.93
Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

900 r2=.94 900 r2=.94 900

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)

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

800 r2=.94 900 r2=.94 RMSE Accuracy(%)

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.

2261
A. Sharma, A. Kakkar Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 2254–2269

(c)
1000 1000 900

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

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

100 100 100

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)

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)

Predcted solar irradiance (w/m2)

r2=.96 r2=.93
r2=.92
leapForward spikeslab
FoBa
1000 1000 1000

500 500 500

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)

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

r2=.9 RMSE Accuracy(%)

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)

2262
A. Sharma, A. Kakkar Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 2254–2269

(e)
1500 1500 1500

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

r2=.94 r2=.92 r2=.94
foba leapForward spikeslab
1000 1000 1000

500 500 500

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)

r2=.94 RMSE Accuracy(%)

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)

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

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

foba leapForward spikeslab

1000 1000 1000

500 500 500

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)

r2=.94 r2=.92 RMSE Accuracy(%)

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)

2263
A. Sharma, A. Kakkar Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 2254–2269

(g)
1000 1000 1000
Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

r2=.94

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

r2=.98 r2=.98
foba leapForward spikeslab

500 500 500

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)

r2=.96 r2=.96 RMSE Accuracy (%)

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)

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

r2=.83 r2=.9 r2=.92

FoBa leapForward spikeslab

400 400 400

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)

RMSE Accuracy (%)

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)

2264
A. Sharma, A. Kakkar Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 2254–2269

(i)
600 600 600
r2=.92

Predicted solar irradiance(w/m2)

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

Predicted solar irradiance(w/m2)
r2=.85 r2=.9
500 500 spikeslab
500 FoBa leapForward

400 400 400

300 300 300

200 200 200

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)

2 r2=.92 RMSE Accuracy (%)

r =.9
500 500 bagEarthGCV 91.67
Cubist
79.17 79.17
75
400 400 66.67

300 300 41.25

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)

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

r2=.9 r2=.92 r2=.94

300 FoBa
300 leapForward 300
spikeslab
250 250 250

200 200 200

150 150 150

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)

r2=.92 r2=.92 RMSE Accuracy (%)

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)

2265
A. Sharma, A. Kakkar Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 2254–2269

(k)
140 160 140
r2=.9
Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

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)

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)

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

r2=.92 r2=.9 r2=.94

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)

Predicted solar irradiance (w/m2)

r2=.9 RMSE Accuracy (%)

r2=.92 91.67
500 Cubist 500 bagarthGCV 79.17 79.17
75
400 400 66.67

300 300 41.25

32.18
26.8 28.14
22.73
200 200

100 100

0 0
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600

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

Fig. 8. (continued)

2266
A. Sharma, A. Kakkar
• 11th March 2016, 1 h ahead forecasting
For 11th March 2016 in one hour ahead prediction highest
prediction accuracy (90.2%) has been achieved by bagEarthGCV with
r2 value of 1 and 8.52 RMSE. The historical days from 25th February to
27th March ( ± 15 days) from the years 2010–2015 have been used for
training and days from 25th February 2016 to 11th March 2016 have
been used for testing. Initial past time slots has been taken from
7:00 a.m. and last time slot available is one hour ahead of prediction
time.
• 11th March 2016, 24 h ahead forecasting
In 24 h ahead solar forecasting for 11th March 2016, prediction
accuracy has been reduced from 90.2% to 79.17% and offered by Cubist
model. The value of correlation coefficient and RMSE has been
observed as .94 and 38.22 respectively. The historical days from 25th
February to 27th March ( ± 15 days) from the years 2010–2015 have
been used for training and days from 25th February 2016 to 10th
March 2016 have been used for testing. Initial past time slots has been
taken from 7:00 a.m. and last time slot available is 24 h ahead of
prediction time.
• 11th March 2016, 48 h ahead forecasting
In 48 h ahead solar forecasting for 11th March 2016, maximum
prediction accuracy (69.09%) has been offered by spikeslab model
with .88 correlation coefficient and 45.15 RMSE. The historical days
from 25th February to 27th March ( ± 15 days) from the years
2010–2015 have been used for training and days from 25th
February 2016 to 9th March 2016 have been used for testing.
Initial past time slots has been taken from 7:00 a.m. and last time
slot available is 48 h ahead of prediction time.
It has been observed that for 11th March 2016 in all three
forecasting horizons, performance matrix is satisfactory and effec-
tiveness of a particular model is weather specific.
• 25th June 2016, 1 h ahead forecasting
For 25th June 2016 in 1 h ahead prediction, spikeslab gains the
highest prediction accuracy (69.09%) with .96 correlation coefficient
and 45.15 RMSE. The historical days from 10th June to 10th July (
± 15 days) from the years 2010–2015 have been used for training
and days from 10th June 2016 to 25th June 2016 have been used for
testing. Initial past time slots has been taken from 7:00 a.m. and last
time slot available is one hour ahead of prediction time.
• 25th June 2016, 24 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
46.34 RMSE. The historical days from 10th June to 10th July ( ± 15
days) from the years 2010–2015 have been used for training and
days from 10th June 2016 to 24th June 2016 have been used for
testing. Initial past time slots has been taken from 7:00 a.m. and last
time slot available is 24 h ahead of prediction time.
• 25th June 2016, 48 h ahead forecasting
In 48 h ahead prediction of 25th March 2016, maximum
prediction accuracy (62.5%) has been achieved by spikeslab model
with .94 correlation coefficient and 53.34 RMSE. The historical days
from 10th June to 10th July ( ± 15 days) from the years 2010–2015
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
taken from 7:00 a.m. and last time slot available is 48 h ahead of
prediction time.
It has been observed that unstable weather conditions (shown in
Fig. 7) and low correlation with past days is the reason of low
prediction accuracy and high RMSE in all forecasting horizon for
25th June 2016.
• 30th August 2016, 1 h ahead forecasting
In one hour ahead prediction for 30th August 2016, maximum
2267
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 2254–2269
prediction accuracy (83.78%) has been achieved by spikeslab with
.98 correlation coefficient and 22.18 RMSE. The historical days from
15th August to 14th September ( ± 15 days) from the years 2010–
2015 have been used for training and days from 15th August 2016 to
30th August 2016 have been used for testing. Initial past time slots
has been taken from 7:00 a.m. and last time slot available is one
hour ahead of prediction time.
• 30th August 2016, 24 h ahead forecasting
In 24 h ahead solar forecasting for 30th August 2016, spikeslab
offers the maximum prediction accuracy (88.46%) with .92 correla-
tion coefficient and 23.37 RMSE. The historical days from 15th
August to 14th September ( ± 15 days) from the years 2010–2015
have been used for training and days from 15th August 2016 to 29th
August 2016 have been used for testing. Initial past time slots has
been taken from 7:00 a.m. and last time slot available is 24 h ahead
of prediction time.
• 30th August 2016, 48 h ahead forecasting
In 48 h ahead prediction for 30th August 2016, maximum
accuracy (91.67%) has been gained by spikeslab model with .92
correlation coefficient and 22.73 RMSE. The historical days from
15th August to 14th September ( ± 15 days) from the years 2010–
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
has been taken from 7:00 a.m. and last time slot available is 48 h
ahead of prediction time.
• 31st December 2016, 1 h ahead forecasting
In 1 h ahead solar forecasting for 31st December 2016, max-
imum accuracy (93.86%) has been given by Cubist model with .92
correlation coefficient and 10.3 RMSE. The historical days from 16th
December to 15th January ( ± 15 days) from the years 2010–2015
have been used for training and days from 16th December 2016 to
31st December 2016 have been used for testing. Initial past time
slots has been taken from 7:00 a.m. and last time slot available is
one hour ahead of prediction time.
• 31st December 2016, 24 h ahead forecasting
spikeslab model offers highest prediction accuracy (92.7%) for
30th August 2016 in 24 h ahead prediction horizon with .92
correlation coefficient and 10.73 RMSE. The historical days from
16th December to 15th January ( ± 15 days) from the years 2010–
2015 have been used for training and days from 16th December
2016 to 30th December 2016 have been used for testing. Initial past
time slots has been taken from 7:00 a.m. and last time slot available
is 24 h ahead of prediction time.
• 31st December 2016, 48 h ahead forecasting
For 48 h ahead forecasting, Spikeslab offers highest prediction
accuracy (91.67%) with .94 correlation coefficient and 22.73 RMSE.
The historical days from 16th December to 15th January ( ± 15 days)
from the years 2010–2015 have been used for training and days from
16th December 2016 to 29th December 2016 have been used for
testing. Initial past time slots has been taken from 7:00 a.m. and last
time slot available is 48 h ahead of prediction time.
It has observed from the results obtained in the above section that
Spikeslab and Cubist model achieves high prediction accuracy than
FoBa, leapForward and bagEarthGCV with respect to different fore-
casting horizons for all seasons of a year.
6. Conclusion
The applicability of five machine learning models, FoBa,
leapForward, spikeslab, Cubist and bagEarthGCV in modelling solar
irradiance prediction has been investigated and evaluated under
seasonal effects using the same test platform and datasets. Main
contribution is performance comparison of models in different fore-
casting horizons ranging from 1 h ahead to 48 h ahead. The perfor-
mance has been evaluated by statistical indices correlation coefficient,
A. Sharma, A. Kakkar Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 2254–2269

RMSE and prediction accuracy (%) for each model.
Regarding the results obtained in experiment 1, accuracy of a model
depends upon quality of selected data for model training. For different
days of a year (11th March, 25th June, 30th August and 31st
December), the performance matrix (r2, RMSE and accuracy) for
leapForward (.99, 3.07, 96.08%), Cubist (.98, 35.18, 78.95),
bagEarthGCV (.98, 11.27, 89.47%) and FoBa (1, 2.92, 98.21%)
respectively have been obtained.
In experiment 2, it has been observed that FoBa, leapForward,
Cubist performs well with large set of past time slots according to solar
irradiance availability (7:00 a.m. onwards) whereas spikeslab works
with less past samples. The performance of bagEarthGCV is unpre-
dictable with respect to number of past samples and is iteration
specific.
The results obtained in experiment 3 shows that results obtained by
spikeslab and Cubist model are very promising and stable with respect
to different forecasting horizons. The prediction accuracy with different
forecasting horizons (1 h ahead, 24 h ahead, 48 h ahead) gained by
spikeslab for 11th March (86.27%, 66.67%, 69.09% respectively), for
25th June (69.09%, 61.54% and 62.5% respectively), 30th August
(83.78%, 88.46%, 91.67% respectively) and 31st December (92.86%,
92.8% and 91.67% respectively) are satisfactory and stable. Similarly,
Cubist achieves (84.31%, 79.17%, 58.18% respectively) for 11th March,
(58.18%, 65.38%, 54.17% respectively) for 25th June, (78.38%, 69.23%
and 79.17% respectively) for 30th August and (93.86%, 92.6%, 79.17%
respectively) for 31st December.
The results are evident that solar irradiance forecasting with such
machine learning models is recent and productive study in this field
leads to accurate solar forecasting than conventional methods.

Appendix A

See Table A1 here

Table A1
Comparison of different ambient energy sources.

Power source Power density Conversion efficiency

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

Appendix B. Algorithm: FoBa: Forward- Backward greedy algorithm

Input:f1 ,. . . ,fd ,y∈R nand ϵ > 0

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 )

2268
A. Sharma, A. Kakkar
break
Let k = k − 1
LetF k = F k +1 − {j k +1 }
Letw k = w(Ḟ k )
end
end
Appendix C. Algorithm for subset selection
Forward selection: 1. Assumption: A0 be a null model no predictors
2. For c = 0, . . , k − 1
• k − c models increase the predictors in A0 with one additional predictor.
• 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.
References
[1] Bhatnagar V, Owende P. Energy harvesting for assistive and mobile applications.
Energy Sci Eng 2015;3(3):153–73.
[2] Ali H, Riaz M, Bilal A, Ullah K. Comparison of energy harvesting techniques in
wireless body area network. Int J Multidiscip Sci Eng 2016;7(6):20–4.
[3] NREL: MIDC/SRRL Baseline measurement system, 〈http://www.nrel.gov/midc/
srrl_bms/〉. [Accessed 4 January 2017].
[4] Pyrometer, 〈http://www.kippzonen.com/Product/15/CMP22-Pyranometer/〉.
[Accessed 2 January 2017].
[5] Inman RH, Pedro HT, Coimbra CF. Solar forecasting methods for renewable energy
integration. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2013;39(6):535–76.
[6] Banos R, Manzano-Agugliaro F, Montoya FG, Gil C, Alcayde A, Gómez J.
Optimization methods applied to renewable and sustainable energy: a review.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15(4):1753–66.
[7] Christensen-Dalsgaard J. Physics of solar-like oscillations. Sol Phys
2004;220(2):137–68.
[8] Marquez R, Coimbra CF. Forecasting of global and direct solar irradiance using
stochastic learning methods, ground experiments and the NWS database. Sol
Energy 2011;85(5):746–56.
[9] Li J, Ward JK, Tong J, Collins L, Platt G. Machine learning for solar irradiance
forecasting of photovoltaic system. Renew Energy 2016;90:542–53.
[10] Maier HR, Dandy GC. Neural networks for the prediction and forecasting of water
resources variables: a review of modelling issues and applications. Environ Modell
Softw 2000;15(1):101–24.
[11] Wang L, Kisi O, Zounemat-Kermani M, Salazar GA, Zhu Z, Gong W. Solar radiation
prediction using different techniques: model evaluation and comparison. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2016;2016(61):384–97.
[12] Orfila A, Ballester JL, Oliver R, Alvarez A, Tintoré J. Forecasting the solar cycle with
genetic algorithms. Astron Astrophys 2002;386(1):313–8.
[13] Zeng J, Qiao W. Short-term solar power prediction using a support vector machine.
Renew Energy 2013;52:118–27.
[14] Chen SX, Gooi HB, Wang MQ. Solar radiation forecast based on fuzzy logic and
neural networks. Renew Energy 2013;60:195–201.
[15] Mellit A, Pavan AM. A 24-h forecast of solar irradiance using artificial neural
network: application for performance prediction of a grid-connected PV plant at
Trieste, Italy. Sol Energy 2010;84(5):807–21.
[16] Kemmoku Y, Orita S, Nakagawa S, Sakakibara T. Daily insolation forecasting using
2269
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018) 2254–2269
a multi-stage neural network. Sol Energy 1999;66(3):193–9.
[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
Networks, IWANN; 2007. p. 749–756.
[18] Sfetsos A, Coonick AH. Univariate and multivariate forecasting of hourly solar
radiation with artificial intelligence techniques. Sol Energy 2000;68(2):169–78.
[19] Quaiyum S, Rahman S, Rahman S. Application of artificial neural network in
forecasting solar irradiance and sizing of photovoltaic cell for standalone systems in
Bangladesh. Int J Comp Appl 2011;32:51–6.
[20] Belaid S, Mellit A. Prediction of daily and mean monthly global solar radiation
using support vector machine in an arid climate. Energy Convers Manag
2016;118:105–18.
[21] Jiang H, Dong Y. A nonlinear support vector machine model with hard penalty
function based on glowworm swarm optimization for forecasting daily global solar
radiation. Energy Convers Manag 2016;126:991–1002.
[22] Boata RS, Gravila P. Functional fuzzy approach for forecasting daily global solar
irradiation. Atmos Res 2012;112:79–88.
[23] Zhang T. Adaptive forward-backward greedy algorithm for learning sparse repre-
sentations. IEEE Trans Inform Theory 2011;57(7):4689–708.
[24] Zhang T. Adaptive forward-backward greedy algorithm for sparse learning with
linear models. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS;
2009. p. 1921–28.
[25] Miller A. Subset selection in regression, 2nd ed. CRC Press; 2002.
[26] Zou H, Hastie T. Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net. J R Stat
Soc B 2005;67(2):301–20.
[27] Ishwaran H, Kogalur UB, Rao JS. spikeslab: prediction and variable selection using
spike and slab regression. R J 2010;2(2):68–73.
[28] Quinlan JR. Combining instance-based and model-based learning. In: 10th
International Conference on Machine Learning; 1993. p. 236–43.
[29] Quinlan JR. C4. 5: programs for machine learning. Elsevier; 2014.
[30] Wang Y, Witten IH. Inducing Models Trees for Continuous Classes. In: 9th
European Conference on Machine Learning; 1997. p. 128–37.
[31] Friedman JH. Multivariate adaptive regression splines. Ann Stat 1991;19(1):1–67.
[32] Balshi MS, McGuire AD, Duffy P, Flannigan M, Walsh J, Melillo J. Assessing the
response of area burned to changing climate in western boreal North America using
a Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines (MARS) approach. Glob Change Biol
2009;15(3):578–600.