Energy and AI 11 (2023) 100222

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy and AI
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/egyai

Combining data envelopment analysis and Random Forest for selecting

optimal locations of solar PV plants
Gilles Cattani
GSEM University of Geneva, Geneva, 1213, Switzerland

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

HIGHLIGHTS

• Combination of DEA and Random Forest is proposed.

• Effects of environmental variables on solar PV efficiency are estimated.
• Most efficient site for solar PV plant is selected.

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Solar photovoltaic (PV) energy has emerged as a potential alternative to carbon-based energies to meet the
Solar energy Paris agreement commitment. This study investigates the effect of environmental variables on the efficiency
Location selection of solar PV panels. Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) is used to estimate efficiencies of 91 solar PV panels
Australia
located in Australia during the time period 2010–2020. The effects of environmental variables on the estimated
Data envelopment analysis
efficiencies are quantified using the truncated regression model. Random forest is then used to predict efficiency
of solar PV panel in every city of Australia. The results allow to determine the most suitable location and

E-mail address: gilles.cattani@unige.ch.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyai.2022.100222
Received 21 September 2022; Received in revised form 6 December 2022; Accepted 7 December 2022
Available online 13 December 2022
2666-5468/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
G. Cattani
Random forest regions for solar PV energy production in Australia. This study provides an interesting and easily interpretable
tool for policy decision makers.
1. Introduction
The world we live in is based on massive energy consumption. On
the one hand, it has enabled rapid economic growth. On the other
hand, climate change due to carbon dioxide (C02 ) emissions is leading
to an energy crisis. As conventions are adopted to reduce fossil fuel
combustion, future energy demand will increase by 2050 [1]. In this
context, solar energy has attracted particular interest. This renewable
energy is non-polluting and inexhaustible [2]. The amount of solar en-
ergy that reaches the Earth’s surface each year is 10,000 times greater
than the energy consumed by the world in one year [3]. Therefore,
being able to efficiently convert a tiny fraction of this renewable source
into electricity could ensure sustainability [4].
Due to their attractive features (e.g. low maintenance costs Sun-
dareswaran et al. [5] and rapidly falling investment costs [6]), solar
photovoltaic (PV) panels are the most popular solar power generation
technology [7]. In 2020, total installed solar PV capacity reaches 760
Gigawatts (GW) [8] with an averaged annual growth rate of 40.3%1
between 2000 and 2020. This expansion of solar panels has been
accompanied by a large body of research literature. Of particular
interest has been the evaluation of solar panel performance under
outdoor conditions. Numerous studies have highlighted the difference
in the performance of PV systems between real working conditions and
standard test conditions2 (STC): [10] found that the performance of
solar PV is 18% lower under Greece outdoor environment than under
STC; [11] estimate a linear decrease in the performance of solar PV
installed in Algeria with temperature and air mass; [12] highlight the
negative impact of dust on solar PV performance; [13] have found
that the performance of solar PV panels is influenced by insolation, air
temperature, wind speed and relative humidity (for a comprehensive
review of the effect of environmental variables on the performance of
solar PV see [14]).
The purpose of the present study is to investigate the effect of
environmental variables on the efficiency of solar PV plants in order to
predict potential efficiencies of new sites. The proposed methodology
is based on a combination of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and
Random forest. First, the DEA is used to estimate the technical efficien-
cies of 91 Australian solar PV plants over the time period 2010–2020.
Then a truncated regression model is estimated to capture the effects of
environmental variables on the estimated efficiencies. Finally to predict
the efficiency of new sites, the highly flexible Random forest is used.
The results of this study highlight the optimal location of solar PV panel
installations in Australia. They could be useful to policy-makers when
considering new solar energy projects.
This study contributes in several aspects. Firstly, this is the first
study proposing to predict the efficiency of solar PV plants. While the
current literature has only focused estimating efficiencies. Secondly,
to provide inference on the black-box estimation, the present study
propose to predict the efficiencies of solar PV panels in every city of
Australia. The resulting efficiency map is a directly and easily inter-
pretable tool for policy makers. Finally, a truncated regression analysis
is also provided to capture the effects of environmental variables on
efficiencies. The results are compared to the existing literature.
1
This averaged annual growth rate is computed from solar PV installed
capacity data available from https://www.irena.org/Statistics/View-Data-by-
Topic/Capacity-and-Generation/Technologies.
2
1000 kW/m2 of irradiance, 25 ◦ C of ambient temperature and air mass of
1.5 [9].
2
Energy and AI 11 (2023) 100222
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents
the literature review. Section 3 describes the methodology. Empirical
results are provided in Section 4. Section 5 presents the conclusions.
2. Literature review
The present study used an econometric/statistical approach to mea-
sure the efficiency of solar PV panels. Applied econometricians estimate
the technical efficiency (TE) of producing units using either DEA or
Stochastic Frontier Analysis (SFA). The former is a deterministic perfor-
mance measurement, which assesses the relative efficiency of decision-
making units [15]. The latter is a stochastic regression model, which
separates the TE from random noises [16,17]. The renewable energy
literature has primarily used DEA to estimate the efficiency of produc-
ing unit, see [18,19] for comprehensive review of DEA in renewable
energy. In this section, a substantial review of DEA applications in solar
PV plants is presented.
[20,21] use the DEA approach to evaluate respectively 8 solar cell
industries and 12 solar cell companies in Taiwan. [22] rely on DEA
and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to evaluate the performance of
32 solar firms in Taiwan. The DEA has been used to compare PV power
stations installed in Germany and in the United States [23,24]. [25]
use an input-oriented dynamic SBM model to measure the efficiency of
40 PV companies in China and in the United States. [26] evaluate the
comprehensive efficiency of photovoltaic power generation in China
based on a Super-Efficient DEA (SE-DEA). The DEA method has been
used to study the performance of 855 commercial rooftop PV system
installed in California [27,28]. [29] use a three-stage DEA to investigate
the effect of environmental variable on the efficiency of 70 solar PV
power plants located in the United States. [30] use the DEA approach
to evaluate the efficiency of 84 solar panel sectors installed in South
Africa. [31] compares the performance of crystalline silicon and thin-
film PV solar cell industries in Iran based on DEA. [32] combine
DEA and Shannon’s entropy to quantify the relative performance of 16
solar PV panels in India. [33] propose a three-phase DEA approach to
evaluate 46 photovoltaic poverty projects. The environmental efficiency
of 118 PV plants in China are estimated using DEA method [34]. [35]
use a combination of DEA and AHP to evaluate the performance of 21
solar mini-grids in Bangladesh.
The DEA approach has also been used to evaluate the best location
for solar PV panels in Japan [36], in Turkey [37] and in Iran [38]. [39]
compare 25 cities in Iran based on a combination of DEA, Principal
Component Analysis (PCA) and Numerical Taxonomy (NT) to deter-
mine the optimal site for solar PV installation. [40] rely on Artificial
Neural Network (ANN) and fuzzy-DEA (FDEA) to investigate the best
location of solar PV among 150 solar plant units in Iran. [41] use DEA
and FDEA to compare 15 potential solar plant sites in Taiwan. [42]
study the optimal location among 46 potential sites in Vietnam for solar
PV based on a combination of DEA, FAHP and technique for order
of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS). The location
efficiency of 20 cities in Taiwan for solar PV panels is evaluated based
on DEA and AHP [43]. Finally, [44] combine DEA, grey-AHP (G-AHP)
and grey-TOPSIS (G-TOPSIS) to determine the optimal location for
solar PV among 27 location in Vietnam. The literature review of DEA
application in solar PV energy is summarized in Table 1.
The studies presented above are entirely focused on either estimat-
ing efficiencies of solar PV panels or investigating factors affecting
the estimated efficiencies. While the former studies are important for
comparing solar plants/finding the most productive unit and the latter
are useful for examining the effect of external variables on technical
G. Cattani Energy and AI 11 (2023) 100222

Table 1
DEA application in solar PV energy.
Author(s) and year Scope Methodology Time period
[39] 25 cities in Iran DEA, PCA and NT Unspecified
[40] 150 solar plant units in Iran ANN and FDEA Unspecified
[20] 8 solar cell industries in Taiwan DEA 2010–2011
[22] 32 solar firms in Taiwan DEA and AHP Unspecified
[21] 12 solar cell companies DEA 2011
in Taiwan
[36] 16 cities in Japan DEA Unspecified
[23] 160 PV power stations DEA 2012
in Germany and in US
[37] 30 cities in Turkey DEA 2010
[41] 15 solar plant sites DEA and FDEA Unspecified
in Taiwan
[25] 40 PV companies in China SBM 2009–2013
and in US
[24] 160 PV power stations DEA 2012
in Germany and in US
[27] 855 commercial rooftop PV DEA 2008–2012
systems in the USA
[28] 855 commercial rooftop PV DEA 2008–2012
systems in US
[26] Photovoltaic power generation SE-DEA 2005–2015
in China
[29] 70 solar PV power plants Three-stage DEA 2010
in the USA
[30] 84 solar panel sectors DEA 2014
in South Africa
[31] Crystalline silicon and DEA Unspecified
thin-film PV solar cell
industries in Iran
[32] 16 Solar PV panels in India DEA and Shannon’s entropy Unspecified
[42] 46 potential sites in Vietnam DEA, FAHP and TOPSIS Unspecified
[33] 42 photovoltaic poverty Three-phase DEA Unspecified
alleviation projects
in China
[34] 118 PV plants in China DEA 2012–2016
[38] 44 sites in Iran DEA Unspecified
[43] 20 cities in Taiwan DEA and AHP Unspecified
[35] 21 solar mini-grids DEA and AHP 2010–2019
in Bangladesh
[44] 27 locations in Vietnam DEA, G-AHP and G-TOPSIS Unspecified

efficiency, there are no studies that focus on predicting the efficiencies
estimated by DEA. This is however necessary to support the decisions of
policy makers. For example, the choice of location for new solar panels
can be decided based on efficiency prediction (i.e. technical efficiencies
of potentials solar PV panel sites are predicted and compared in order to
select the optimal location). Several studies in other applied fields have
already proposed to predict the efficiencies estimated by DEA: [45] use
gradient boosting approach to predict the efficiency estimated by DEA
of 386 operational anaerobic digestion facilities. The DEA estimated
efficiencies of 450 paddy producers have been predicted by Random
Forest [46]. [47] rely on a combination of machine learning methods
and DEA to predict the efficiency of Chinese manufacturing companies.
Several predicting algorithms have been use to predict DEA efficiency
of COVID-19 management [48,49] Finally, [50] use a combination of
3.1. Data envelopment analysis
DEA is a non-parametric method used to measure the relative
efficiency of a decision making unit (DMU) transforming inputs into
outputs [15]. By denoting the set of inputs, 𝑥 ∈ R𝑑+ , and the set of
outputs, 𝑦 ∈ R𝑝+ , we can define the production possibilities frontier
containing all feasible combinations of inputs and output as
𝛹 = {(𝑥, 𝑦) ∣ x can produce y}. (1)
The output technical efficiency of a DMU with set (𝑥0 , 𝑦0 ) ∈ is R𝑑+𝑝
+
then defined as a measure of the Euclidean distance from the point
(𝑥0 , 𝑦0 ) to the boundary of 𝛹 [52]. Since 𝛹 is unknown, it is generally
estimated by the convex hull of the free disposal hull of observed data,
∑
𝑛 ∑
𝑛

DEA and ANN to predict the efficiencies of water companies. However, 𝛹̂ = {(𝑥, 𝑦) ∣ 𝑦 ≤ 𝑦𝑖 𝛾𝑖 , 𝑥 ≥ 𝑥𝑖 𝛾𝑖 ,
𝑖=1 𝑖=1
in these cited studies, the inference of machine learning estimations is
∑
𝑛
constraint to variable importance. This limitation is due to the black 𝛾𝑖 = 1, 𝛾𝑖 ≥ 0 ∀𝑖 = 1, … , 𝑛}. (2)
box nature of these methods [51]. This study proposes to predict the 𝑖=1
efficiency in each city in Australia and derive a directly interpretable where 𝛾𝑖 ’s are the intensity variables. The DEA technical efficiency
efficiency map. estimator could be expressed in linear programming terms
∑
𝑛 ∑
𝑛

3. Methodology 𝛿̂0 = 𝑚𝑎𝑥{𝜃 > 0 ∣ 𝜃𝑦0 ≤ 𝑦𝑖 𝛾𝑖 , 𝑥0 ≥ 𝑥𝑖 𝛾𝑖 ,

𝑖=1 𝑖=1
∑
𝑛
This section describes the methodology used to estimate technical 𝛾𝑖 = 1, 𝛾𝑖 ≥ 0 ∀𝑖 = 1, … , 𝑛}, (3)
efficiencies of solar plants, measure influence of environmental vari- 𝑖=1

ables on the estimated efficiencies and predict the optimal location for where 𝛿0 is a measure of technical efficiency for the producing unit
solar PV installation based on efficiency. with the corresponding input 𝑥0 and output 𝑦0 . It has been shown that

3
G. Cattani
under given assumptions, this estimator is consistent [53]. However,
the convergence rate is relatively low due to the curse of dimensionality
associated with nonparametric estimations and 𝛿̂0 has a downward
biased.
3.2. Truncated regression
Once technical efficiencies of DMU are estimated it is of typical
interest to investigate the influence of environmental variables on effi-
ciency in a second stage estimation. More specifically, one might want
to learn about the unknown smooth function linking environmental
variables to estimated efficiencies
𝛿̂𝑖 = 𝑓 (𝑧𝑖 ) + 𝜖𝑖 , 𝑖 = 1, … , 𝑛
where 𝑧𝑖 is a 𝑘 dimensional set of environmental variables. This econo-
metric model was originally estimated with Tobit and Ordinary least
squares regression until the seminal paper of [54]. The authors showed
that these methods are not consistent due to the right-tail3 truncation
of the error term 𝜖𝑖 . Since 𝛿̂𝑖 ≤ 1, we can rewrite Eq. (4) as
𝜖𝑖 ≤ 1 − 𝑓 (𝑧𝑖 ), 𝑖 = 1, … , 𝑛.
The authors also highlighted the presence of the bias of 𝛿̂ and serial
correlation in Eq. (4). To solve these issues, they propose a statistical
model where the two stages approach is appropriate. The error term
is assumed to be normally distributed with zero mean and unknown
variance, truncation is determined by Eq. (5) and unknown smooth
function is assumed to be linear, 𝑓 (𝑧𝑖 ) = 𝑧𝑖 𝛽. Estimates of 𝛽 ′ 𝑠 are ob-
tained with a combination of truncated maximum likelihood estimation
and bootstrap method see the second algorithm of [54,55] for details.
The steps of the estimation method are summarized in Algorithm 1.
Algorithm 1 Second algorithm of [54]
Require: Input data 𝑥 ∈ R𝑑+ , output data 𝑦 ∈ R𝑝+ and environmental
variable data 𝑧 ∈ R𝑘 .
1: compute from original sample 𝛿̂𝑖 , ∀𝑖 = 1, ..., 𝑛 using (3).
2: estimate 𝛽 and 𝜎𝜖 (variance of 𝜖𝑖 ) with maximum likelihood
estimation of truncated regression (4) assuming 𝑓 (𝑧𝑖 ) = 𝑧𝑖 𝛽.
3: for each 1 ∶ 𝐿1 boostrap samples
4: draw 𝜖𝑖 , ∀𝑖 = 1, ..., 𝑛 from 𝑁(0, 𝜎̂ 𝜖 ) with truncation.
5: compute 𝛿𝑖∗ = 𝑧𝑖 𝛽̂ + 𝜖𝑖 , ∀𝑖 = 1, ..., 𝑛.
𝛿̂
6: set 𝑥∗𝑖 = 𝑥𝑖 and 𝑦∗𝑖 = 𝑦𝑖 𝛿 ∗𝑖 , ∀𝑖 = 1, ..., 𝑛.
𝑖 𝐵 𝑏=1
7: compute 𝛿̂𝑖∗ , ∀𝑖 = 1, ..., 𝑛 using (3) with 𝑥∗𝑖 and 𝑦∗𝑖 .
̂
8: compute the bias-corrected estimator as 𝛿̂𝑖 = 𝛿̂𝑖 − 𝐵𝑖𝑎𝑠( ̂ 𝛿̂𝑖 ),
̂ ̂
∀𝑖 = 1, ..., 𝑛, where 𝐵𝑖𝑎𝑠(𝛿𝑖 ) is estimated from previous boostrap
procedure.
̂ them to grow in depth, they generally have relatively low bias and high
9: Estimate 𝛽̂ and 𝜎̂̂ 𝜖 with maximum likelihood estimation of
truncated regression (4) with 𝛿̂̂𝑖
10: for each 1 ∶ 𝐿2 boostrap samples
11: draw 𝜖𝑖 , ∀𝑖 = 1, ..., 𝑛 from 𝑁(0, 𝜎̂̂ 𝜖 ) with truncation.
12: compute 𝛿𝑖∗∗ = 𝑧𝑖 𝛽̂̂ + 𝜖𝑖 , ∀𝑖 = 1, ..., 𝑛.
13: estimate 𝛽̂̂∗ and 𝜎̂̂ 𝜖∗ with maximum likelihood estimation of
truncated regression (4) with 𝛿𝑖∗∗ .
̂ ̂̂ based on
14: return bias-corrected estimates 𝛽̂ and estimated 𝑉̂ [𝛽]
second boostrap procedure.
3.3. Random forest
The Random Forest introduced by [56] is one of the most popular
machine learning tools. Its relatively high accuracy and ability to
3
Often presented in the literature as a left-tail truncation when reciprocals
of technical efficiency 𝛿1 are used.
𝑖
Energy and AI 11 (2023) 100222
Fig. 1. Single regression tree with 3 splits applied to solar PV panel efficiency data.
(4)
handle small sample sizes have prompted many practitioners to apply
it in various research areas [57]. The simplest way to describe the
Random Forest is to consider it as an ensemble of different regression
trees.
A regression tree is constructed by successively splitting of the data
in a set of rectangles. Each variable split is chosen to minimize a
(5) criterion (e.g. residual sum of squares). The feature space is divided
into two regions stored as nodes. These nodes are further divided until
a stopping criterion is met (e.g. the minimum number of observations in
terminal nodes). The response variable is then predicted by averaging
values in each group.
An illustration is provided in Fig. 1. Consider 828 estimated efficien-
cies of solar PV plants. These efficiencies are separated in two groups
corresponding respectively to solar panels affected by more (733) and
less (95) than 0.000133 millimeters of snow per hour. A second split is
chosen in the left group with respect to the variable Wind Speed at the
value 1.1 meter per second and the third split at the value 23 degrees.
In this minimal example, efficiencies of solar PV panels are predicted
by the average of each group.
The idea of the Random Forest is to increase the performance of
regression tree using bootstrap aggregating (bagging). Suppose we fit a
model based on our observed sample and obtain a predicted response
variable 𝑦̂ = 𝑓̂(𝑧), where 𝑧 is the set of explanatory variables. We
can obtain 𝐵 boostrap samples by resampling the original data with
replacement. A model is fitted for each boostrap sample and the final
prediction is obtained by averaging all predictions,
1 ∑ ̂∗𝑏
𝐵
𝑓̂𝑏𝑎𝑔𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑔 (𝑧) = 𝑓 (𝑧), (6)
where 𝑓̂∗𝑏 (𝑧) is the predicted response variable of boostrap sample 𝑏.
Bagging reduces the variance of the final prediction.
Regression trees benefit greatly from bagging. Indeed, if we allow
variance. However, the regression trees constructed in each boostrap
sample are correlated. Because they are build based on the same
set of explanatory variables. Unfortunately, the higher the correlation
between the trees, the higher the variance of the bagging estimator
(6). Hence, the Random Forest algorithm randomly select a fraction
of explanatory variables (e.g. one third of available variables) for each
boostrap sample and use them to construct regression tree. This reduces
the correlation between trees without increasing too much the variance.
The Random Forest algorithm is used to predict technical efficien-
cies estimated by DEA using the set of environmental variables 𝑧.
One may wonder why the Random Forest algorithm is used instead of
other prediction algorithms. Therefore, predictions are also made using
other machine learning techniques and compared based on a goodness
of fit criteria. For the prediction problem presented in this paper,
Random Forest is the most accurate algorithm (see Section 4.3). More
generally, Random Forest is expected to perform well with non-linear
data and converge relatively fast [58]. The Random Forest algorithm
is also robust to outliers [59], requires relatively few hyperparameters
compared to other methods [60] and does not overfit the data [61]. The
4
G. Cattani
main drawback of using Random Forest is the lack of interpretability
that results from the black box nature of the algorithm. To overcome
this problem, Random Forest is used to predict the technical efficiencies
of potential solar PV installations in each city in Australia. The resulting
efficiency map can be directly interpreted by decision makers.
4. Empirical results
The methodology described in Section 3 is applied to an unbal-
anced panel data combining information on inputs and output of 91
Australian solar panels from 2010 to 2020. The data are collected
from the PVoutput.org website.4 This platform allows panel owners to
automatically archive solar PV energy production and contains infor-
mation on panel system characteristics (e.g. capacity (MW), number of
panels, orientation, tilt and inverter size (MW), see table and figures of
Appendix for details). Numerous studies rely on this data (e.g., [62] use
it to simulate solar PV energy output). However, the website does not
provide information on metallic structure, PV system wire and battery.
Although the degradation of solar PV panel caused by environmental
variables is likely to be different due to these characteristics [63]. The
second stage truncated regression is estimated with and without fixed
effect (capturing the unobserved characteristics of solar PV installation)
and results are consistent.
This study focus on the effect of temperature, solar irradiance, precip-
itation, snowfall, wind speed and air density at the solar PV location. In
the comprehensive review of [14], environmental factors affecting solar
PV panels are dust accumulation, temperature, wind speed, humidity
and snowfall. Although there is no information on dust accumulation
on solar PV, it is determined by wind speed (which influences the
settlement of soiling on solar PV surface), precipitation (which cleans
solar PV) and temperature (which favors the adhesion of dust particles
to the PV surface). The ambient temperature at the solar PV location
also affects the temperature of the solar PV panel (an increase in
ambient temperature decreases the output voltage of the module, which
reduces the output power of the PV system). Wind speed can have
a cooling effect on the photovoltaic system, reducing the operating
temperature of the cell. Snowfall is expected to have a negative effect
on the efficiency of photovoltaic systems by reducing the amount of
sunlight reaching the photovoltaic cells. Finally humidity can seep
into the solar panel and cause the encapsulant to delaminate. Since
humidity information is not available at the solar PV location, this study
used air density measurements (which vary at the same location with
temperature and humidity).
The data of environmental variables are obtained from the Modern-
Era Retrospective analysis for Research and Applications climate
(MERRA) dataset.5 The ambient temperature (measured in degrees),
solar irradiance (measured in watt per square meter), precipitation
(measured in millimeters per hour), snowfall (measured in millimeters
per hour), wind speed (measured in meters per second) and air density
(measured in kilogram per cubic meter) are recorded and aggregated
for each year at the location of each solar PV panel. Summary statistics
of data are provided in Table 2.
4.1. DEA efficiency estimation
The efficiencies of solar PV plants are estimated using the method-
ology presented in 3.1. Variable returns to scale are allowed in the
estimated frontier as constant and non-increasing returns to scale are
rejected6 [64,65]. Following previous DEA studies of solar PV plants,
the electricity produced by solar plant is defined as output, 𝑦 =
4
The raw data can be downloaded at https://pvoutput.org.
5
The raw data can be downloaded at https://gmao.gsfc.nasa.gov/
reanalysis/MERRA-2.
6
Both null hypothesis are rejected at 𝛼 = 0.05.
5
Energy and AI 11 (2023) 100222
Fig. 2. Estimated empirical probability density function of DEA efficiencies.
𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑑 and installed capacity, solar irradiance and tem-
perature are defined as inputs, 𝑥 = (𝐼𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦, 𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑖𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒,
𝑇 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒). Note that our study follows both convention, namely
that the number of producing units is larger than the product of the
number of outputs and input (91 > 3 × 1) [66] and that the number
of observations is greater than three times the number of inputs plus
outputs (828 > 3 × (1 + 3)) [67]. The efficiencies of solar PV panels
are estimated by DEA using the R package rDEA. The distribution of
efficiencies estimated by DEA is displayed in Fig. 2. Most technical
efficiencies are between 0.6 and 0.9 with an average of 0.74. Since the
value 1 indicates perfect relative efficiency, it can be noted that solar
panel have in general a relatively high efficiency.
4.2. Truncated regression analysis
Following the methodology described in Section 3.2 to measure
the influence of environmental variables on estimated efficiency, the
following second stage regression model is proposed
𝛿̂𝑖𝑡 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 𝑃 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑡 + 𝛽2 𝑊 𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑡
+ 𝛽3 𝑆𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑓 𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑡 + 𝛽4 𝐴𝑖𝑟 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦𝑖𝑡
+ 𝛽5 𝑇 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑖𝑡 + 𝛽6 𝐴𝑔𝑒𝑖𝑡 + 𝜖𝑖𝑡 , (7)
where 𝛿̂𝑖𝑡 is the technical efficiency of solar PV plant 𝑖 at year 𝑡
estimated by DEA, 𝐴𝑔𝑒𝑖𝑡 is the age of solar PV plant 𝑖 at year 𝑡 and 𝜖𝑖𝑡 is
the truncated error term. This truncated regression model is estimated
following [54] with the R package rDEA setting the right truncation at
value 1.
Note that in this two stages procedure, the panel data observa-
tions are pooled. Although it is always better to have more data
for nonparametric methods (linear programming estimation of (3)),
pooling data indirectly assumed that the production frontier is separable
with respect to time. In other words, the production frontier ignores
potential changes between time periods. While this assumption may not
be appropriate for producing industries subject to continuous techno-
logical changes, this is not the case for solar PV plants. In fact, once
a solar panel is installed, its production frontier will remain the same
throughout its lifetime. The plant will eventually be removed when it
becomes obsolete and replaced with a brand new panel. But since solar
PV plants are observed throughout their life, this assumption seems
appropriate. The estimates obtained from the truncated bootstrap re-
gression are presented in Table 3 (standard errors are estimated with
200 bootstraps samples).
The variable 𝑊 𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑 is positively related to the efficiency of
the solar PV panels with an associated significant coefficient of 0.013
(i.e. increasing the wind speed at the location of the solar PV plant,
increases the efficiency of the solar plant by 0.013). This result is
G. Cattani Energy and AI 11 (2023) 100222

Table 2
Summary statistics.
Variable Unit of Account Number of observation Mean Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum
Electricity produced Megawatt hour 828 7096 4371 1479 44964
Installed capacity Megawatt 828 4717 2819 1480 29700
Solar irradiance Watt per m2 828 0.3071 0.022 0.2311 0.3669
Temperature Degrees 828 17.506 3.879 9.974 24.085
Precipitation Millimeters per hour 828 0.073 0.033 0.003 0.294
Wind speed Meter per second 828 4.063 1.487 0.260 6.595
Snowfall Millimeters per hour 828 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.004
Air density Kilogram per m3 828 1.188 0.030 1.116 1.225
Age of solar plant Years 828 5.059 2.606 1.000 10.000

Table 3 mtry, the number of randomly selected variables, node size, the mini-
Estimates of the Boostrap Truncated Regression.
mum number of observations in terminal nodes and sample size, the size
Truncated Bootstrap Regression
of boostrap samples. mtry is usually set to one third of the available
Estimate 2.5% C.I. 97.5% C.I. variables. Lower values lead to less correlated trees but decrease the
Intercept 1.866∗∗∗ 1.447 2.242 average performance of the trees (suboptimal variables can be used).
(0.210) Node size is set by default to 5. This hyperparameter controls the depth
Precipitation 0.185 −0.035 0.419
(0.120)
of the regression tree. Sample size is generally set to the same size as the
Wind Speed 0.013∗∗∗ 0.008 0.018 original sample. As the hyperparameter mtry, lower values lead to less
(0.003) correlated trees. The R package tuneRanger is used to tune all hyperpa-
Snowfall 61.933∗∗∗ 38.781 85.549 rameters simultaneously. This package relies on sequential model-based
(14.260)
optimization (SMBO) [73] to select the optimal set of hyperparameters
Air Density −0.842∗∗∗ −1.149 −0.488
(0.174) based on the mean squared error criteria. In our optimization problem,
Temperature −0.096∗∗∗ −0.013 −0.007 tuned hyperparameters are 𝑚𝑡𝑟𝑦 = 6, 𝑛𝑜𝑑𝑒 𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒 = 8 and 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒 =
(0.002) 59%. Note that setting mtry to 6 implies that we are using full set of
Age −0.005∗∗∗ −0.007 −0.002
variables available in each boostrap sample. The resulting regression
(0.001)
trees are more accurate but potentially correlated. But by setting sample
Note: 828 obs. ∗ 𝑝 < 0.1; ∗∗
𝑝 < 0.05; ∗∗∗
𝑝 < 0.01.
size to about 60% of the original sample, the trees are de-correlated.
The regression trees of the first 4 boostrap samples are display in Fig. 3.
Note that even though the trees are constructed with the same set of
consistent with [68] assessing that wind has a cooling effect on the explanatory variables, setting the sample size at 60% produces different
solar PV panel and with [10] observing that the positive effect of wind trees.
speed is relatively small compared to the negative effect of temper- The variable importances of each predictor are displayed in Fig. 4.
ature. Indeed, the significant coefficient associated with the variable The metric used is the Mean decrease in accuracy which is better
𝑇 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 is −0.096, see [69] for a review of negative effect of than using node impurity [74]. The most important variable is the
temperature on solar PV plant performance. The coefficient associated Temperature. The age of the solar PV panel has less influence on the
with variable 𝑆𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑓 𝑎𝑙𝑙 is positive and significant. The magnitude, estimated efficiency than environmental variables. It should be noted
61.933, is relatively large compared to the other coefficients. This is that the variable Precipitation is used for efficiency prediction. While it
mainly due to the fact that snowfall is not common in Australia (the is not significant in the truncated regression. This could indicate that
maximum value of the variable 𝑆𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑓 𝑎𝑙𝑙 is 0.004 in the sample), the precipitation has a non-linear effect on the estimated efficiencies. To
coefficient 𝛽3 absorbs the scale of the variable. The sign of the estimated provide an interpretation of the Random Forest results, the efficiency of
coefficient seems surprising, since snow accumulation on solar glass newly installed solar PV panels is predicted in all Australian cities with
is thought to reduce the efficiency of solar installations [70]. One a population of more than 1000 inhabitants. Note that the Random For-
possible explanation is that Australia’s warm climate does not allow est estimation used only environmental variables. It is then sufficient
snow to accumulate. Therefore, snowfall only cleans the solar PV glass. to obtain the value of these variables at each city location using the
A significant negative effect is estimated for the variable 𝐴𝑖𝑟 𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦. MERRA dataset to predict the efficiency of a solar PV plant installed in
An increase of air mass reduces the sunlight reaching the solar cell this location. The predicted efficiency of solar PV panel are predicted
and decreases the performance of the solar PV plant [71]. The effect for 3828 cities.7 The ranking of cities based on the efficiency score
of aging is estimated at −0.005. In other words, the efficiency of an is provided in the Table 5. The most suitable city to install solar PV
installed photovoltaic solar panel decreases by 0.05 every 10 years. panels seems to be the small town of Evandale located on the island of
Finally, the variable 𝑃 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 is not significant in the truncated Tasmania. The least suitable location is the city of Augusta in the south
regression model. west of Australia. The cities of Melbourne and Sydney are ranked 445
and 2226 respectively. To visualize the predicted efficiencies location
4.3. Predicted efficiencies for solar PV panels, the average of predicted efficiencies is computed
for each Australian region. The results are displayed in Fig. 5. The most
The truncated regression model presented in the previous section favorable region for the installation of solar PV panels is the island of
allows a direct interpretation of estimated coefficient. However this Tasmania. The southeastern regions also appear to be more optimal
model requires relatively strong assumptions (e.q. linear effect of en- than the northern or western regions. The most unfavorable region
vironmental variables, no interaction effect, . . . ). It is then particularly according to these results is the Far North located at the northern tip of
interesting to estimate the flexible Random Forest model. The estima- Australia.
tion is made using the R package randomForest setting the number of
regression trees to 1000.
To improve the performance of the Random Forest the hyperparam- 7
The city’s location is defined by the Australian national cartography
eters are tuned following [72]. The set of hyperparameters contains mapping agency as the location of the city hall.

6
G. Cattani Energy and AI 11 (2023) 100222

Fig. 3. Regression trees associated with 4 boostrap samples.

Fig. 4. Variable importance of each predictor based on the mean decrease in accuracy.
Fig. 5. Average of predicted efficiencies of newly installed solar PV panels in 2020 by
Australian region.
Table 4
RMSE computed with 10 folds cross-validation.
Method RMSE Hyperparameters
there is not enough data for estimating this complex model. The best
Random forest 0.076 𝑚𝑡𝑟𝑦 = 6, 𝑛𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒 = 8, 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒 = 0.59
GAM 0.079 𝑚𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑑 = GCV.Cp and 𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡 = FALSE neural network (selected by caret package) contains only one layer with
SVM 0.083 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 = 1 3 neurons. The Boosted tree is the worst method, probably because
ANN 0.089 𝐿𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟1 = 3, 𝐿𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟2 = 0, 𝐿𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟3 = 0 of its tendency to overfitting. The correlation of predicted efficiencies
Boosted tree 0.095 𝑢 = 0.1, 𝑚𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑝 = 100, 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ = 3
estimated by the Random Forest and other methods is relatively high
(i.e. between 0.6 and 0.7).

One may say that other machine learning techniques should be ap-
plied instead of the Random Forest. Therefore, the efficiencies of solar
PV panels are also predicted using ANN, General Additive model (GAM),
Support Vector Machines with Linear Kernel (SVM) and Boosted Tree.
The hyperparameters of the methods listed above are also optimized
using the R package caret, see Table 4 for the list of optimized tuning
parameters. The prediction methods are then compared based on Root
mean squared errors (RMSE) computed for each method with using 10
folds cross-validation. RMSE are reported in Table 4.
The Random forest is the most efficient method to predict DEA
technical efficiencies. Note that ANN does not perform well because
5. Conclusion
The transition from fossil fuel combustion to renewable energy is
one of the biggest challenge of the next decades. Among the renewable
energies, solar PV has received a lot of attention. The potential of this
source of electricity is relatively large. Therefore, it is of particular
interest to find the most suitable locations for installing solar PV panels.
This study examines the effect of environmental variables on the techni-
cal efficiency of solar PV panels. First, efficiencies of 91 solar PV panels
installed in Australia are estimated during the time period 2010–2020
with DEA. Then the truncated regression model is used to estimate the

7
G. Cattani Energy and AI 11 (2023) 100222

Table 5
Predicted efficiency score of Australian cities for 2020.
City Score Rank
Evandale 0.973 1
West Moonah 0.972 2
Glenorchy 0.972 3
Mount Stuart 0.972 4
Goodwood 0.972 5
Lutana 0.972 6
... ... ...
Melbourne 0.859 445
... ... ...
Sydney 0.762 2226
... ... ...
Mount Sheridan 0.600 3823
Bentley Park 0.600 3824
Dunsborough 0.559 3825
Quindalup 0.558 3826
Yallingup 0.558 3827
Augusta 0.555 3828 Fig. A.7. Generated electricity in MWh against Inverter size measured in Watts.

Table A.6
Orientation of Solar PV plants.
Orientation East North East North North West West
Number of solar PV panels 5 21 44 19 2

Fig. A.8. Generated electricity in MWh against number of panels of solar PV plants.

References

[1] Van Ruijven BJ, De Cian E, Sue Wing I. Amplification of future energy demand
Fig. A.6. Estimated distribution of tilt angle measured in degrees of solar PV panels.
growth due to climate change. Nature Commun 2019;10(1):1–12.
[2] Yasa UG, Erim M, Erim N, Girgin M, Kurt H. Design of anti-reflective graded
height nanogratings for photovoltaic applications. In: 2017 international con-
ference on numerical simulation of optoelectronic devices. IEEE; 2017, p.
effects of environmental variables on the estimated efficiencies. Finally 25–6.
the highly flexible Random forest is used to predict the efficiency of [3] Sarkın AS, Ekren N, Sağlam Ş. A review of anti-reflection and self-cleaning
newly installed solar PV panels in the 3828 Australian cities. The results coatings on photovoltaic panels. Sol Energy 2020;199:63–73.
highlight optimal locations and regions for the installation of solar [4] Choudhary P, Srivastava RK. Sustainability perspectives-a review for solar
photovoltaic trends and growth opportunities. J Clean Prod 2019;227:589–612.
PV panels. This study provides an interesting and easily interpretable
[5] Sundareswaran K, Sankar P, Nayak PSR, Simon SP, Palani S. Enhanced energy
tool for policy decision makers. Further research could use the same output from a PV system under partial shaded conditions through artificial bee
methodology to investigate the best location for the installation of other colony. IEEE Trans Sustain Energy 2014;6(1):198–209.
renewable energy plants. [6] Xiao M, Junne T, Haas J, Klein M. Plummeting costs of renewables-are energy
scenarios lagging? Energy Strategy Rev 2021;35:100636.
[7] Liang Z, Zhou Z, Zhao L, Dong B, Wang S. Fabrication of transparent, durable
Declaration of competing interest and self-cleaning superhydrophobic coatings for solar cells. New J Chem
2020;44(34):14481–9.
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan- [8] Murdock HE, Gibb D, André T, Sawin JL, Brown A, Ranalder L, et al. Renewables
2021-global status report. 2021.
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to [9] Commission IE, et al. Crystalline silicon terrestrial photovoltaic (PV)
influence the work reported in this paper. modules—design qualification and type approval. CEI/IEC 2005;61215.
[10] Gaglia AG, Lykoudis S, Argiriou AA, Balaras CA, Dialynas E. Energy efficiency of
Data availability PV panels under real outdoor conditions–an experimental assessment in Athens,
Greece. Renew Energy 2017;101:236–43.
[11] Hamou S, Zine S, Abdellah R. Efficiency of PV module under real working
Data will be made available on request. conditions. Energy Procedia 2014;50:553–8.
[12] Hachicha AA, Al-Sawafta I, Said Z. Impact of dust on the performance of
solar photovoltaic (PV) systems under United Arab Emirates weather conditions.
Appendix A
Renew Energy 2019;141:287–97.
[13] Adeh EH, Good SP, Calaf M, Higgins CW. Solar PV power potential is greatest
See Fig. A.6, Fig. A.7, Fig. A.8 and Table A.6. over croplands. Sci Rep 2019;9(1):1–6.

8
G. Cattani
[14] Santhakumari M, Sagar N. A review of the environmental factors degrading
the performance of silicon wafer-based photovoltaic modules: Failure detec-
tion methods and essential mitigation techniques. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2019;110:83–100.
[15] Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E. Measuring the efficiency of decision making
units. European J Oper Res 1978;2(6):429–44.
[16] Aigner D, Lovell CK, Schmidt P. Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier
production function models. J Econometrics 1977;6(1):21–37.
[17] Meeusen W, van Den Broeck J. Efficiency estimation from cobb-douglas
production functions with composed error. Internat Econom Rev 1977;435–44.
[18] Mardani A, Zavadskas EK, Streimikiene D, Jusoh A, Khoshnoudi M. A comprehen-
sive review of data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach in energy efficiency.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;70:1298–322.
[19] Mohd Chachuli FS, Ahmad Ludin N, Mat S, Sopian K. Renewable energy
performance evaluation studies using the data envelopment analysis (DEA): A
systematic review. J Renew Sustain Energy 2020;12(6):062701.
[20] Chueh H-E, Jheng J-Y. Applying data envelopment analysis to evaluation of
Taiwanese solar cell industry operational performance. Int J Comput Sci Inform
Technol 2012;4(4):1.
[21] Hsiao J-M. Measuring the operating efficiency of solar cell companies in Taiwan
with data envelopment analysis. Am J Appl Sci 2012;9(12):1899.
[22] Lee AH, Lin CY, Kang H-Y, Lee WH. An integrated performance evaluation model
for the photovoltaics industry. Energies 2012;5(4):1271–91.
[23] Sueyoshi T, Goto M. Photovoltaic power stations in Germany and the United
States: A comparative study by data envelopment analysis. Energy Econ
2014;42:271–88.
[24] Sueyoshi T, Goto M. Measurement of returns to scale on large photovoltaic power
stations in the United States and Germany. Energy Econ 2017;64:306–20.
[25] Li N, Liu C, Zha D. Performance evaluation of Chinese photovoltaic companies
with the input-oriented dynamic SBM model. Renew Energy 2016;89:489–97.
[26] Liu J, Long Y, Song X. A study on the conduction mechanism and evaluation of
the comprehensive efficiency of photovoltaic power generation in China. Energies
2017;10(5):723.
[27] Wang DD, Sueyoshi T. Assessment of large commercial rooftop photovoltaic
system installations: Evidence from California. Appl Energy 2017;188:45–55.
[28] Sueyoshi T, Wang D. Measuring scale efficiency and returns to scale on
large commercial rooftop photovoltaic systems in California. Energy Econ
2017;65:389–98.
[29] Wang Z, Li Y, Wang K, Huang Z. Environment-adjusted operational performance
evaluation of solar photovoltaic power plants: A three stage efficiency analysis.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;76:1153–62.
[30] de Villiers A, Vermeulen H. Sector performance monitoring in utility-scale solar
farms using data envelopment analysis. In: 2017 IEEE PES powerafrica. IEEE;
2017, p. 192–7.
[31] Haeri A. Evaluation and comparison of crystalline silicon and thin-film photo-
voltaic solar cells technologies using data envelopment analysis. J Mater Sci,
Mater Electron 2017;28(23):18183–92.
[32] Ghosh S, Yadav VK, Mukherjee V, Yadav P. Evaluation of relative impact of
aerosols on photovoltaic cells through combined Shannon’s entropy and data
envelopment analysis (DEA). Renew Energy 2017;105:344–53.
[33] Wu Y, Ke Y, Zhang T, Liu F, Wang J. Performance efficiency assessment of pho-
tovoltaic poverty alleviation projects in China: A three-phase data envelopment
analysis model. Energy 2018;159:599–610.
[34] You H, Fang H, Wang X, Fang S. Environmental efficiency of photovoltaic power
plants in China—A comparative study of different economic zones and plant
types. Sustainability 2018;10(7):2551.
[35] Aziz S, Chowdhury SA. Performance evaluation of solar mini-grids in Bangladesh:
A two-stage data envelopment analysis. Clean Environ Syst 2021;2:100003.
[36] Yokota S, Kumano T. Mega-solar optimal allocation using data envelopment
analysis. Electr Eng Jpn 2013;183(4):24–32.
[37] Sozen A, Mirzapour A, Çakir MT. Selection of the best location for solar plants
in Turkey. J Energy Southern Afr 2015;26(4):52–63.
[38] Dehghani E, Jabalameli MS, Pishvaee MS, Jabarzadeh A. Integrating information
of the efficient and anti-efficient frontiers in DEA analysis to assess location of
solar plants: A case study in Iran. J Ind Syst Eng 2018;11(1):163–79.
[39] Azadeh A, Ghaderi S, Maghsoudi A. Location optimization of solar
plants by an integrated hierarchical DEA PCA approach. Energy Policy
2008;36(10):3993–4004.
[40] Azadeh A, Sheikhalishahi M, Asadzadeh S. A flexible neural network-fuzzy data
envelopment analysis approach for location optimization of solar plants with
uncertainty and complexity. Renew Energy 2011;36(12):3394–401.
[41] Lee AH, Kang H-Y, Lin C-Y, Shen K-C. An integrated decision-making model for
the location of a PV solar plant. Sustainability 2015;7(10):13522–41.
[42] Wang C-N, Nguyen VT, Thai HTN, Duong DH. Multi-criteria decision making
(MCDM) approaches for solar power plant location selection in Viet Nam.
Energies 2018;11(6):1504.
Energy and AI 11 (2023) 100222
[43] Wang C-N, Dang T-T, Bayer J, et al. A two-stage multiple criteria decision making
for site selection of solar photovoltaic (PV) power plant: A case study in Taiwan.
IEEE Access 2021;9:75509–25.
[44] Wang C-N, Dang T-T, Wang J-W, et al. A combined data envelopment anal-
ysis (DEA) and grey based multiple criteria decision making (g-MCDM) for
solar PV power plants site selection: A case study in Vietnam. Energy Rep
2022;8:1124–42.
[45] De Clercq D, Wen Z, Fei F. Determinants of efficiency in anaerobic bio-waste co-
digestion facilities: A data envelopment analysis and gradient boosting approach.
Appl Energy 2019;253:113570.
[46] Nandy A, Singh PK. Farm efficiency estimation using a hybrid approach of
machine-learning and data envelopment analysis: Evidence from rural eastern
India. J Clean Prod 2020;267:122106.
[47] Zhu N, Zhu C, Emrouznejad A. A combined machine learning algorithms and DEA
method for measuring and predicting the efficiency of Chinese manufacturing
listed companies. J Manag Sci Eng 2020.
[48] Aydin N, Yurdakul G. Assessing countries’ performances against COVID-19 via
WSIDEA and machine learning algorithms. Appl Soft Comput 2020;97:106792.
[49] Taherinezhad A, Alinezhad A. COVID-19 crisis management: Global appraisal
using two-stage DEA and ensemble learning algorithms. Sci Iranica 2022.
[50] Molinos-Senante M, Maziotis A. Prediction of the efficiency in the water industry:
An artificial neural network approach. Proc Saf Environ Prot 2022;160:41–8.
[51] Efron B. Prediction, estimation, and attribution. Internat Statist Rev 2020;88:S28–
59.
[52] Farrell MJ. The measurement of productive efficiency. J R Stat Soc Ser A
(General) 1957;120(3):253–81.
[53] Kneip A, Park BU, Simar L. A note on the convergence of nonparametric DEA
estimators for production efficiency scores. Econom Theory 1998;14(6):783–93.
[54] Simar L, Wilson PW. Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric
models of production processes. J Econometrics 2007;136(1):31–64.
[55] Simar L, Wilson PW. Two-stage DEA: Caveat emptor. J Prod Anal
2011;36(2):205–18.
[56] Breiman L. Random forests. Mach Learn 2001;45(1):5–32.
[57] Biau G, Scornet E. A random forest guided tour. Test 2016;25(2):197–227.
[58] Fan G-F, Yu M, Dong S-Q, Yeh Y-H, Hong W-C. Forecasting short-term electricity
load using hybrid support vector regression with grey catastrophe and random
forest modeling. Util Policy 2021;73:101294.
[59] Cutler A, Cutler DR, Stevens JR. Random forests. In: Ensemble machine learning.
Springer; 2012, p. 157–75.
[60] Demir S, Sahin EK. Comparison of tree-based machine learning algorithms
for predicting liquefaction potential using canonical correlation forest, rota-
tion forest, and random forest based on CPT data. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
2022;154:107130.
[61] Desai S, Ouarda TB. Regional hydrological frequency analysis at ungauged sites
with random forest regression. J Hydrol 2021;594:125861.
[62] Pfenninger S, Staffell I. Long-term patterns of European PV output using 30 years
of validated hourly reanalysis and satellite data. Energy 2016;114:1251–65.
[63] de Oliveira MCC, Cardoso ASAD, Viana MM, Lins VdFC. The causes and
effects of degradation of encapsulant ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (EVA)
in crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules: A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2018;81:2299–317.
[64] Simar L, Wilson PW. Non-parametric tests of returns to scale. European J Oper
Res 2002;139(1):115–32.
[65] Simar L, Wilson PW. Inference by the m out of n bootstrap in nonparametric
frontier models. J Prod Anal 2011;36(1):33–53.
[66] Boussofiane A, Dyson RG, Thanassoulis E. Applied data envelopment analysis.
European J Oper Res 1991;52(1):1–15.
[67] Dyson RG, Allen R, Camanho AS, Podinovski VV, Sarrico CS, Shale EA. Pitfalls
and protocols in DEA. European J Oper Res 2001;132(2):245–59.
[68] Gökmen N, Hu W, Hou P, Chen Z, Sera D, Spataru S. Investigation of wind speed
cooling effect on PV panels in windy locations. Renew Energy 2016;90:283–90.
[69] Dubey S, Sarvaiya JN, Seshadri B. Temperature dependent photovoltaic (PV)
efficiency and its effect on PV production in the world–a review. Energy Procedia
2013;33:311–21.
[70] Andrews RW, Pollard A, Pearce JM. The effects of snowfall on solar photovoltaic
performance. Sol Energy 2013;92:84–97.
[71] Rida K, Al-Waeli A, Al-Asadi K. The impact of air mass on photovoltaic panel
performance. Eng Sci Rep 2016;1(1):1–9.
[72] Probst P, Wright MN, Boulesteix A-L. Hyperparameters and tuning strategies for
random forest. Wiley Interdisc Rev Data Min Knowl Discov 2019;9(3):e1301.
[73] Hutter F, Hoos HH, Leyton-Brown K. Sequential model-based optimization for
general algorithm configuration. In: International conference on learning and
intelligent optimization. Springer; 2011, p. 507–23.
[74] Genuer R, Poggi J-M, Tuleau-Malot C. Variable selection using random forests.
Pattern Recognit Lett 2010;31(14):2225–36.