Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Pak-Austria Fachhochschule-Institute of Applied Sciences and Technology, Mang, Haripur 22621, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan
2.
Department of Energy & Resource Engineering, College of Engineering, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
3.
Department of Mechanical Engineering, FE&T, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan 60000, Pakistan
† These authors contributed equally to this study.
Received:
22 June 2024
Revised:
05 August 2024
Accepted:
20 August 2024
Published:
09 September 2024
The need for accurate solar energy forecasting is paramount as the global push towards renewable energy intensifies. We aimed to provide a comprehensive analysis of the latest advancements in solar energy forecasting, focusing on Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Learning (DL) techniques. The novelty of this review lies in its detailed examination of ML and DL models, highlighting their ability to handle complex and nonlinear patterns in Solar Irradiance (SI) data. We systematically explored the evolution from traditional empirical, including machine learning (ML), and physical approaches to these advanced models, and delved into their real-world applications, discussing economic and policy implications. Additionally, we covered a variety of forecasting models, including empirical, image-based, statistical, ML, DL, foundation, and hybrid models. Our analysis revealed that ML and DL models significantly enhance forecasting accuracy, operational efficiency, and grid reliability, contributing to economic benefits and supporting sustainable energy policies. By addressing challenges related to data quality and model interpretability, this review underscores the importance of continuous innovation in solar forecasting techniques to fully realize their potential. The findings suggest that integrating these advanced models with traditional approaches offers the most promising path forward for improving solar energy forecasting.
Citation: Ayesha Nadeem, Muhammad Farhan Hanif, Muhammad Sabir Naveed, Muhammad Tahir Hassan, Mustabshirha Gul, Naveed Husnain, Jianchun Mi. AI-Driven precision in solar forecasting: Breakthroughs in machine learning and deep learning[J]. AIMS Geosciences, 2024, 10(4): 684-734. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2024035
Related Papers:
[1]
Biao Tang, Weike Zhou, Yanni Xiao, Jianhong Wu .
Implication of sexual transmission of Zika on dengue and Zika outbreaks. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(5): 5092-5113.
doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019256
[2]
Fabio Sanchez, Luis A. Barboza, Paola Vásquez .
Parameter estimates of the 2016-2017 Zika outbreak in Costa Rica: An Approximate Bayesian Computation (ABC) approach. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(4): 2738-2755.
doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019136
[3]
Minna Shao, Hongyong Zhao .
Dynamics and optimal control of a stochastic Zika virus model with spatial diffusion. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(9): 17520-17553.
doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023778
[4]
Hai-Feng Huo, Tian Fu, Hong Xiang .
Dynamics and optimal control of a Zika model with sexual and vertical transmissions. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(5): 8279-8304.
doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023361
[5]
Bo Zheng, Wenliang Guo, Linchao Hu, Mugen Huang, Jianshe Yu .
Complex wolbachia infection dynamics in mosquitoes with imperfect maternal transmission. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2018, 15(2): 523-541.
doi: 10.3934/mbe.2018024
[6]
Chen Liang, Hai-Feng Huo, Hong Xiang .
Modelling mosquito population suppression based on competition system with strong and weak Allee effect. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(4): 5227-5249.
doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024231
[7]
A. Endo, H. Nishiura .
Age and geographic dependence of Zika virus infection during the outbreak on Yap island, 2007. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(4): 4115-4126.
doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020228
[8]
H.T. Banks, Jimena L. Davis .
Quantifying uncertainty in the estimation of probability distributions. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2008, 5(4): 647-667.
doi: 10.3934/mbe.2008.5.647
[9]
Nao Yamamoto, Hyojung Lee, Hiroshi Nishiura .
Exploring the mechanisms behind the country-specific time of Zika virusimportation. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(5): 3272-3284.
doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019163
[10]
Azmy S. Ackleh, Jeremy J. Thibodeaux .
Parameter estimation in a structured erythropoiesis model. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2008, 5(4): 601-616.
doi: 10.3934/mbe.2008.5.601
Abstract
The need for accurate solar energy forecasting is paramount as the global push towards renewable energy intensifies. We aimed to provide a comprehensive analysis of the latest advancements in solar energy forecasting, focusing on Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Learning (DL) techniques. The novelty of this review lies in its detailed examination of ML and DL models, highlighting their ability to handle complex and nonlinear patterns in Solar Irradiance (SI) data. We systematically explored the evolution from traditional empirical, including machine learning (ML), and physical approaches to these advanced models, and delved into their real-world applications, discussing economic and policy implications. Additionally, we covered a variety of forecasting models, including empirical, image-based, statistical, ML, DL, foundation, and hybrid models. Our analysis revealed that ML and DL models significantly enhance forecasting accuracy, operational efficiency, and grid reliability, contributing to economic benefits and supporting sustainable energy policies. By addressing challenges related to data quality and model interpretability, this review underscores the importance of continuous innovation in solar forecasting techniques to fully realize their potential. The findings suggest that integrating these advanced models with traditional approaches offers the most promising path forward for improving solar energy forecasting.
1.
Introduction
The Zika virus is spread by the same species of mosquito, namely Aedes aegypti (A. aegypti), as dengue. It is a member of the virus family Flaviviridae. The first discovery of the Zika virus was in 1947, however despite being around for a while, the Zika virus has not received much attention until recently when it has been discovered that it is associated with microcephaly which is a serious birth defect in newborns, caused if women are infected with Zika during pregnancy. Most importantly there is still no vaccine to prevent the Zika virus. Apart from causing severe birth defects to newborn babies, infected individuals can also experience fever, rash and joint pain. As a result, in this paper we will use an existing mathematical model for dengue to analyse the dynamical behaviour for the Zika virus, especially in Brazil, as well as obtaining the future expected number of cases of microcephaly due to Zika. Although the Zika virus and dengue are very similar and thus some parameter values would remain the same, parameters such as the transmission probabilities as well as the basic reproduction number may vary. Therefore in this paper we will also use some existing data values in Brazil to estimate those required parameter values. We will use four different approaches to estimate the expected number of cases of microcephaly in Brazil due to pregnant women exposed to the Zika virus.
This paper is arranged as follows: In Section 2, we will look at the first approach by working with a delayed dengue model without seasonality as well as defining the parameter values. We will then look at the results obtained by using the least squares estimation technique in R. The basic reproduction number for our model without seasonality is also calculated. In Section 3, we will look at the second approach where we will improve on our model by adding seasonality into the birth function of the A. aegypti mosquitoes. In Section 4, we will continue to work with the same model as in Section 2, but we will make the model more realistic, but also more complicated, by taking into account the age-structure of the human population. In Section 5, we will look at the last approach where we introduce seasonality into the more complicated age-structured model given in Section 4. Lastly in Section 6, we will summarise all our results. Numerical simulations are produced throughout the paper to illustrate our findings.
2.
The delayed Zika model without seasonality
Let us define SH(t),IH(t) and RH(t) to respectively represent the susceptible, infected and recovered individuals for humans, while Sv(t),Lv(t) and Iv(t) respectively represent the susceptible, latent and infected mosquitoes. NH=SH+IH+RH denotes the total human population size and Nv=Sv+Lv+Iv represents the total A. aegypti population size where both populations are constant. The delayed mathematical model for dengue mentioned in [1] is as follows:
with initial conditions SH(t0),RH(t0),Iv(t0),Lv(t0),{IH(η):η∈[t0−τ,t0]} and {Sv(η):η∈[t0−τ,t0]}. The definitions of the parameter values used in Eq (2.1) and their corresponding values are given in Table 1.
Table 1.
Parameter values given in Eq (2.1).
Parameter values
Biological meanings
Values
a
A. aegypti biting rate
Variable
b
Probability of transmission of Zika when an infectious mosquito bites a susceptible human
Note that the model described by Eq (2.1) does not have an exposed class in humans. However, it is important to note that much work has already been done on the Zika virus without a human exposed class [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12]. Therefore, we hope that the results mentioned in this paper will be able to contribute to this research area.
As we can see from Table 1, the two most crucial parameter values b and c can take values within the ranges given and thus one of the main aims in this project is to use the least squares estimation technique in R and the real Zika virus data (the weekly incidence cases of Zika) from Brazil given in [13] to estimate these two parameter values. In the next section, we will discuss in detail the idea behind the estimation technique.
2.1. Parameter estimation
The basic reproduction number is defined as the expected number of secondary cases caused when a newly infected individual enters a disease-free population at equilibrium. A secondary case is a case infected from the original infected case via only one mosquito. In the context of mosquito-borne disease such as Zika it can equally be defined as the expected number of secondary cases caused when a newly infected mosquito enters a disease-free population at equilibrium. All epidemics begin with a single infected host entering a disease-free population and the basic reproduction number R0 exceeds one. Therefore in our case, it is reasonable to assume that a single Zika infected human enters the disease-free population at some time t0, where t0<t1 and t1 is the time when we have available Zika data values in Brazil obtained from [13]. In this case t1 represents the first week in 2015. Let us now assume a single infected human has entered the Brazilian population at some time before t1, say t0, where SH(t0)=207,847,999,IH(t0)=1,RH(t0)=0,Lv(t0)=0,Iv(t0)=0,{IH(η)=0 for η∈[t0−τ,t0]} and {Sv(η)=207,848,000×1.5 for η∈[t0−τ,t0]}. Note that these initial values correspond to the time t0 at which the first human case of Zika virus was first introduced into a disease-free population. The values of these variables at the later time t1 will be different.
We used the least squares estimation technique in R (R version 3.0.2, Frisbee Sailing 2013 version) using the function nls.lm and the library minpack.lm to perform the least squares fitting. By comparing the least square minimised results with the real data values for Zika cases in Brazil given in [13], the estimated values for b,c and t1−t0 with different values of a are given in Table 2 where t1−t0 is in units of weeks. The corresponding 95% confidence intervals for the estimated values are given in Table 3. Clearly, all the values we obtained for both b and c lie within the appropriate ranges mentioned by Andraud et al. [14] and Chikak and Ishikama [15].
Table 2.
Estimated values for b,c and t1−t0 for different biting rates to 4 decimal places (d.p.) t1−t0 is measured in weeks.
Note that in Eq (2.1) if we multiply a by a constant factor k, divide both b and c by the same factor, and keep t0 the same, then the output of the model does not change. Therefore, when we had found the optimal least squares fitted values b and c corresponding to a = 0.20 per day, we could then find the optimal values of b and c for the other values of a by dividing those values for a = 0.20 per day by the appropriate factor and keeping t0 the same. As a result, we have chosen to illustrate only the results obtained for when a = 0.20 per day.
Note also that applying the procedure suggested above to a = 0.50 per day (namely dividing b and c from a = 0.20 per day by a factor of 2.5) gives resulting values of b and c which are outside the constraints for these model parameters suggested by the literature. As a result, we have decided to obtain an alternative set of optimal values for when a = 0.50 per day, where b and c are within the ranges suggested by literature. In this situation, these constraints force the least squares algorithm to fit to a later phase of the epidemic after most people have become infected (note the number of recovered humans in expressions (2.1) and (2.2)). Hence the model predictions with the least squares fitted parameters are virtually the same for a = 0.20 per day, a = 0.25 per day and a = 0.30 per day but different for a = 0.50 per day.
For the purpose of illustration, the data fitting against the real Zika data using Eq (2.1) for a=0.20/day and a=0.50/day are given in Figure 1 and Figure 2 respectively. The results shown in these figures are not a perfect fit and one of the main reasons could be that seasonality is not included in Eq (2.1). Motivated by this, later on in this paper, we will modify Eq (2.1) by including seasonality into the model to improve the data fitting and the accuracy of our estimation.
Figure 1.
Numerical simulation for predicted cases for Zika obtained from Eq (2.1) plotted against the real data from Brazil from [13] with the unit of time in weeks, starting from the beginning of 2015 where a=0.20/day.
Figure 2.
Numerical simulation for predicted cases for Zika obtained from Eq (2.1) plotted against the real data from Brazil from [13] with the unit of time in weeks, starting from the beginning of 2015 where a=0.50/day.
In addition, in order to allow us to make more estimates for the future expected number of cases of microcephaly, it is important that we have reasonable starting values for SH,IH,RH,Sv,Lv and Iv. As a result, by keeping the assumption that a single infected human enters a disease-free population at some point t0, we also obtained estimated expected values at time t1 corresponding to different biting rates given as follows. In each case the values of Sv(η) and IH(η) for η∈[t1−τ,t1] are given by the simulation using the estimated parameters.
● For a=0.20/day and t1=t0+180.5848 weeks, the values at time t1 are
The values at time t1 will be used as initial values for future simulations in Section 2.3.
Now that we have all the required parameter values and the initial values for each biting rate, we can estimate the future expected number of cases of microcephaly as a result of pregnant women infected with Zika during pregnancy. However before we do this, it is important for us to find another important epidemiological parameter value namely the basic reproduction number.
2.2. The basic reproduction number
The basic reproduction number, R0, is a very important parameter value in infectious disease modelling as it often acts as a threshold which determines whether a particular epidemic will die out (R0<1) or persist (R0>1). In the context of our model the basic reproduction number is defined as the expected number of secondary cases of disease caused by a single newly infected individual entering a disease-free population at equilibrium. As a result, it is important for us to calculate this particular value. The basic reproduction number for our delayed Zika model given in [19] is defined as
R0=ma2bce−μvτμv(μH+γ).
(2.3)
All the parameter values are defined as in Table 1 where b and c are the least squares estimated values obtained in R given in Table 2 corresponding to different biting rates. By substituting all the required values, we have the basic reproduction number for each biting rate shown in Table 4 to 4 d.p.
Table 4.
Basic reproduction number for different biting rates.
Note that when performing data fitting using the least squares estimation technique mentioned in Section 2.1, we notice that there are two different cases in which we can achieve a best fit against the real Zika data given by Ferguson et al. [13]. The first case is demonstrated by biting rates of a=0.20 per day where the epidemic is just starting and it has yet to reach its peak epidemic level. This scenario is highlighted by having a relatively low basic reproduction number given in Table 4. Another case is when the epidemic has already reached its maximum level and this is illustrated for when a=0.50 per day which has a high basic reproduction number. This is also why we noticed a huge number of recovered individuals in this case as given by (2.2). Although the basic reproduction number given when a=0.50 per day is relatively high compared to the other biting rates, this value is still reasonable as various papers have also estimated a relatively high R0 for different dengue outbreaks [20,21].
In the next section, we will estimate the future number of cases of microcephaly due to Zika virus for different biting rates.
2.3. Estimated number of cases of microcephaly
In this section, we will focus on estimating the expected number of cases of microcephaly in Brazil due to the Zika virus both in the short-term and in the long-term. In this paper, we focus on analysing the effect of pregnant women infected with Zika virus during their first trimester as various reports (e.g. [22,23]) suggest that pregnant women who are infected with the Zika virus during the first trimester have a much higher risk of their babies developing microcephaly as opposed to those who are infected with Zika in their second or third trimesters. This makes sense biologically as during the first trimester, the brain of the baby is still developing and thus it is more susceptible to external factors. Note that the method used in this section can be easily extended and applied to other Zika time periods and to other countries in which Zika is present.
WHO [16] state that Brazil has a total population size of 207,847,000 of which according to the United Nations [24] around 28.2% (58,612,854) were women at the age of fertility (between 15–44 years old). Recall that t1 represents the start of 2015. The unit of time is in weeks unless stated otherwise. For the purpose of illustration, we will show only the simulations which illustrate the dynamical behaviour of humans and mosquitoes both in the long- and in the short-term in the first example.
Note that the models and parameters contain a great deal of uncertainty. We are interested in short-term estimates as they can tell us what happens in the immediate future. However we expect that in the long-term the model will settle down to a unique endemic equilibrium. Hence it is valuable to do simulations over a long time so that we can predict what will happen after the short term transient effects of the disease invading a susceptible population have faded away and we can predict the long-term consequences of Zika too.
Example 1.(a=0.20/day) Let us recall the estimated initial values starting from time t1 obtained from parameter estimation:
with IH(η) and Sv(η) given for η∈[t1−τ,t1] by the simulation.
Let us now define the parameter values as given in Table 1 but with b=0.2489 and c=0.4513 (to 4 d.p). Then by using R to integrate the delayed differential equations given in Eq (2.1) the numerical simulations in the long-term are as shown in Figure 3. We can see that the number of infected individuals persists with an endemic equilibrium of 10,992.89.
Figure 3.
Numerical simulation for our solution to Eq (2.1) in the long-term using the parameter values given in Table 1 with b=0.2489, c=0.4513 to 4 d.p with initial values given by (2.4). The time is measured from the start of 2015.
From various reports (e.g. [22,23]), it is estimated that if a pregnant woman is infected with Zika during the first trimester, then the risk of her baby developing microcephaly ranges from 1% to 13%. The majority of papers in the literature estimate this probability to be in this range. However Nishiura et al. [25] estimated a higher risk of up to 100% using data from Brazil. Their estimates depend on the unknown fraction of Zika virus infections among seronegative dengue-like illness cases. Hence we also include estimates of the number of microcephaly cases when the risk of microcephaly following infection with Zika in the first trimester of preganancy is up to 100%. In order to enhance our understanding of the effect of having different risk percentages on the number of microcephaly cases, we will produce the results where the risk percentage is 1%,7%,13%,40%,70% and 100%. Note that not all of those infected pregnant women are infected during the first trimester and since pregnancy is divided into three different trimesters, we will assume that the probability that an infected pregnant woman is in the first trimester is 1/3.
On average, each of the women currently giving birth now has been pregnant for 270 days of which the first 90 days is considered to be the first trimester in pregnancy. Recall that the average infectious period of the Zika virus is around 6 days. Let us define M1(t) to be the expected future number of cases of microcephaly in newborns as a result of pregnant women infected with the Zika virus in the first trimester. We have that M1 is given by
M1=906I∗NH×μHNH×P1×52weeks,=15I∗×μH×P1×52weeks,
(2.5)
where P1 represents the probability that a baby develops microcephaly given that the pregnant mother is infected in the first trimester which in this case is either 1%,7%,13%,40%,70% or 100%, and 15I∗ represents the number of different distinct infectious cohorts of women that will be infected during their first trimester of pregnancy. Note that I∗ is the endemic equilibrium of the number of infected people which in this case is 10,992.89. Note also that the current model assumes that everyone in the population can give birth. If only women give birth we need to halve I∗ but double μH which gives the same answer.
By using Eq (2.5), we can estimate the future expected number of cases of microcephaly per year in the long-term at endemic equilibrium, provided that the women are infected with the Zika virus during their first trimester of pregnancy with different risk percentages. The results are given in Table 5.
Table 5.
Expected number of microcephaly cases per year at endemic equilibrium level rounded to the nearest whole number for when a=0.20/day.
Although it is interesting for us to see the estimated number of cases of microcephaly at equilibrium, it is more practical for us to find out what happens in the short-term. As a result, we will now focus on a shorter period, say 500 weeks. For a shorter period of time, it is not suitable to use Eq (2.5) as the number of infected individuals is fluctuating over time. As a result, we will introduce an additional differential equation namely dM(t)/dt which describes the number of microcephaly cases in a given time period.
dM(t)dt=15×μHIH(t−ˉτ)×P1,
(2.6)
where ˉτ represents the midpoint of the first trimester which in this case will be around 32.1429 weeks (to 4 d.p) and P1 is defined as before.
Similarly, by solving Eqs (2.1) and (2.6) in R, we have the numerical simulations which illustrate the behaviour of susceptible, infected and recovered individuals over a shorter period of time, namely 500 weeks. The result is shown in Figure 4. From Figure 4, we have the numerical simulation results but in the nearer future. By integrating the differential equation dM(t)/dt, we have that the cumulative number of cases of microcephaly over the first 9.6 years (500 weeks) with different risk percentages are given in Table 6.
Figure 4.
Numerical simulation for our solution to Eq (2.1) in the short-term using the parameter values given in Table 1 with b=0.2489, c=0.4513 to 4 d.p with initial values given by (2.4). The time is measured from the start of 2015.
again the initial values for IH(η) and Sv(η),η∈[t1−τ,t1], are obtained from the simulation. By carrying out the same procedure as in Example 1, we have that the total number of infected individuals persists with an endemic equilibrium of approximately 43,818.92. The future expected number of microcephaly cases at endemic equilibrium per year caused by women who have been infected with the Zika virus in their first trimester of pregnancy with different risk percentages are given in Table 7. For over a shorter period of time, the total cumulative number of microcephaly cases over the first 9.6 years (500 weeks) with different risk percentages are given in Table 8.
Table 7.
Expected number of microcephaly cases per year at endemic equilibrium level rounded to the nearest whole number for when a=0.50/day.
It is well-known that the life cycle of A. aegypti is influenced by many environmental factors such as rainfall and temperature (e.g. [26,27,28]). This might be the reason why the data fitting results shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 are not ideal. As a result, in order to fully capture the behaviour of the A. aegypti under the influence of environmental factors and its effect on the number of microcephaly cases, in this section we decide to improve on our model by adding seasonality into the birth function of A. aegypti. Note that the unit of time is now in weeks. Thus, our delayed Zika model with seasonality becomes:
where all the parameter values are defined as before. α is the amplitude of the seasonality function and ϕ is the peak of the function.
Because we are already fitting a large number of parameters we choose to estimate α heuristically and then fit the remaining parameters a,b,c,t1−t0 and ϕ. Heuristically we get the best result by taking α=1. By choosing α to be 1 and making the same assumptions as we did in Section 2.1, we have obtained a new set of parameter values for b,c,t1−t0 and ϕ corresponding to different biting rates which fitted the real data values for Zika in Brazil [13] much better than the ones we have obtained using Eq (2.1), which is exactly what we expected as environmental factors play an important role in the life cycle of A. aegypti. Recall that t1 represents the first week of 2015 and t1−t0 is in units of weeks. The results are shown in Table 9 with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals given in Table 10.
Table 9.
Estimated values for ϕ,b,c and t1−t0 for different biting rates to 4 d.p. ϕ and t1−t0 are measured in weeks.
Similarly to before, the estimated values of t1−t0 are the same for each value of the biting rate and the estimates for b and c for the values a = 0.25 per day, a = 0.30 per day and a = 0.50 per day can be obtained from the values for a = 0.20 per day by dividing by the corresponding ratio of a-values. So for example for a = 0.25 per day the values of b and c for a = 0.20 per day could be divided by 1.25 to obtain the new b and c values. Note also that the values of b and c for a = 0.20 per day, a = 0.25 per day, and a = 0.30 per day are within the range of values suggested by the literature whilst for a = 0.50 per day they are lower than this range of values. Because this means that all sets of different fitted values will predict the same initial values and numbers of microcephaly cases we present the results only for one of them, a = 0.20 per day. As before we also illustrate the results for a = 0.5/day with alternative least squares parameter estimates for b and c which do lie within the ranges suggested by the literature.
The real Zika data in Brazil [13] from the beginning of 2015 are shown in Figure 5. The way in which we have introduced seasonality is used in many papers for mosquito-borne diseases [27,29,30,31,32,33,34]. Over a long period of time we expect the data to follow a regular seasonal pattern. However we had only 71 weeks data available and as can be seen in Figure 5 the data has two peaks, a lower one at 17 weeks after the start of 2015 and a higher one at 6 weeks after the start of 2016. However in the output of the model with a seasonal mosquito birth rate the plotted incidence will have peaks 52 weeks apart. Additionally the design of the least squares estimation assigns equal weights to all datapoints thus it effectively gives more weight to the larger peak as there are larger potential deviations there. So even the best fit simulation is not a perfect fit to the dataset. An example fit for a=0.2/day is shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Numerical simulation for predicted cases of Zika obtained from Eq (3.1) plotted against the real data from Brazil from [13] with the unit of time in weeks, starting from the beginning of 2015 where a=0.20/day.
The data fitting against real Zika data for each biting rate is shown in Figures 5 and 6 where the unit of time is in weeks. Note that the real Zika data in Brazil from [13] represents the incidence case data of Zika, thus in the least squares fitting to fit the output from the model we have to integrate the incidence term
abIv(t)SH(t)NH,
Figure 6.
Numerical simulation for predicted cases of Zika obtained from Eq (3.1) plotted against the real data from Brazil from [13] with the unit of time in weeks, starting from the beginning of 2015 where a=0.50/day.
Again in (3.2) and (3.3), the initial values for IH(η) and Sv(η),η∈[t1−τ,t1), are given by the simulation using the estimated parameter values. Similarly to Section 2.3, we will now calculate the expected number of cases of microcephaly due to Zika virus both in the short-term and at endemic equilibrium. As the idea is similar to the ones that are presented in Section 2.3, in this section, we will illustrate the results only for when a=0.20/day and for when a=0.50/day, which represent the two cases we encountered in data fitting mentioned in Section 2.2.
Example 3.For a=0.20/day, the number of infected humans has an endemic equilibrium value of around 15,417 rounded to the nearest whole number. Again by using Eq (2.5), we have that the endemic equilibrium number of cases of microcephaly per year are as given in Table 11.
Table 11.
Expected number of microcephaly cases per year at endemic equilibrium level rounded to the nearest whole number for when a=0.20/day including the effect of seasonality.
For a shorter period of time, say 600 weeks in other words in about 11.5 years, the cumulative number of microcephaly cases for the first 11.5 years caused by women being infected with the Zika virus in the first trimester of their pregnancy with different risk percentages are given in Table 12.
Table 12.
Expected number of microcephaly cases over the first 500 weeks rounded to the nearest whole number for when a=0.20/day including the effect of seasonality.
Example 4.For a=0.50/day, the number of infected humans has an endemic equilibrium value of around 43,236 rounded to the nearest whole number. Again by using Eq (2.5), we can estimate the expected number of microcephaly cases per year in the long-term at endemic equilibrium, are as given in Table 13.
Table 13.
Expected number of microcephaly cases per year at endemic equilibrium level rounded to the nearest whole number for when a=0.50/day including the effect of seasonality.
For a shorter period of time, say 600 weeks in other words in about 11.5 years, the cumulative number of microcephaly cases for the first 11.5 years caused by women being infected with the Zika virus in the first trimester of their pregnancy with different risk percentages are given in Table 14.
Table 14.
Expected number of microcephaly cases over the first 500 weeks rounded to the nearest whole number for when a=0.50/day including the effect of seasonality.
Another way, in which we can calculate the expected number of cases of microcephaly is to introduce the age-structure of the human population into our delayed Zika model given in Eq (2.1). Note that the unit of time is now in days for the age-structured model. Let us now define the age-structured delayed Zika model as follows:
where SH(0,t)=μHNH,RH(0,t)=0 for t≥t1,IH(0,t)=0 for t≥t1−τ are the boundary conditions for susceptible, recovered and infected individuals respectively. In addition, SH(ξ,t1)=μHNHe−μHξ,RH(ξ,t1)=0 and IH(ξ,η)=0,η∈[t1−τ,t1], are the initial values for susceptible, recovered and infected individuals respectively. All the other parameter values and the mosquito initial conditions are defined as before. Note that IH(ξ,t) represents the density with respect to age of the number of infected individuals at time t. Therefore, the number of infected individuals between two ages, say A1 and A2, at time t is given as
∫A2A1IH(ξ,t)dξ.
Similarly, in order for us to calculate the future expected number of cases of microcephaly, we would introduce an additional differential equation, dM(t)/dt, into the Eq (4.1), and thus we have
Example 5.(a=0.20/day) By using the parameter estimated values b,c and t1−t0 from Section 2.1 and other parameter values given in Table 1 with a = 0.20/day, we have obtained that for the next 800 days (around 2.19 years), the cumulative number of microcephaly cases is estimated to be around 595, 4,165 and 7,735 (to the nearest whole number) corresponding to having risk percentage of 1%,7% and 13% respectively. For risk percentages 40%, 70% and 100% these numbers are 23,800, 41,650 and 59,500 respectively.
Example 6.(a=0.50/day) By using the parameter estimated values b,c and t1−t0 from Section 2.1 and other parameter values given in Table 1 with a = 0.50/day, we have obtained that for the next 800 days (around 2.19 years), the cumulative number of microcephaly cases is estimated to be around 162, 1,135 and 2,106 (to the nearest whole number) corresponding to having risk percentage of 1%,7% and 13% respectively. For risk percentages 40%, 70% and 100% these numbers become respectively 6,480, 11,340 and 16,200.
Note that the computational time required to generate the results for this age-structured model is considerably longer than for the model given in Eq (2.1) and thus it is difficult to produce results for a longer period of time.
5.
The delayed age-structured Zika model with seasonality
In this section, we will continue to examine the effect of seasonality on the spread of the Zika virus by now introducing seasonality into the more complicated age-structured Zika model. As before, we would also need to introduce an additional differential equation dM(t)/dt which will allow us to calculate the expected future number of cases of microcephaly at a particular time period. Note that the unit of time is now in days for the age-structured model. Thus we have
Example 7.(a=0.20/day) Let us recall that for a=0.20/day, in the non-age-structured seasonal model, α=1 and ϕ=−0.2865 weeks. By solving the differential equations, including dM(t)/dt, we have that in the next 900 days (around 2.47 years), the cumulative number of cases of microcephaly is around 702, 4,914 and 9,126 (to the nearest whole number) corresponding to having risk percentage of 1%, 7% and 13% respectively. For risk percentages 40%, 70% and 100% these numbers are 28,080, 49,140 and 70,200 respectively.
Example 8.(a=0.50/day) Again recall that for a=0.5/day, in the non-age-structured seasonal model, α=1 and ϕ=−0.2865 weeks. Similarly, by solving the differential equations, including dM(t)/dt, we have that in the next 900 days (around 2.47 years), the cumulative number of cases of microcephaly is around 189, 1,323 and 2,457 (to the nearest whole number) corresponding to having risk percentage of 1%, 7% and 13% respectively. For risk percentages 40%, 70% and 100% these numbers become respectively 7,560, 13,230 and 18,900.
Again due to the computational time required to generate the results for this age-structured model being considerably longer than for the model given in Eq (3.1) it is difficult to produce results for a longer period of time.
6.
Conclusion and discussion
Zika virus is transmitted by A. aegypti, the same mosquitoes that are responsible for the transmission of dengue. Although the Zika virus has been around for a while, it has not received much attention until now, when the connection between the Zika virus and microcephaly has recently been discovered. Microcephaly is a serious birth defect in newborns. Motivated by this, in this paper, we focused on using mathematical models and numerical simulations to calculate the future expected number of cases of microcephaly if pregnant women are exposed to Zika.
We used four different approaches to examine this. The first one is using an existing delayed dengue model mentioned in [1], the second one is introducing the age-structure of the human population. The third one is introducing seasonality into the birth function of the A. aegypti mosquitoes to monitor the effect that environmental factors such as rainfall and temperature would have on the spread of Zika between humans and mosquitoes. Lastly, we continue to investigate the effect of seasonality but now on the more complicated age-structured model.
We have used the least squares estimation technique to estimate the two crucial parameter values namely the transmission probabilities between humans and A. aegypti. We have also calculated the basic reproduction number which is a threshold that determines whether a disease will die out or persist over time. We have fitted our models against real Zika data in Brazil from Ferguson et al. [13]. The data fitting results for our seasonality model are as given in Figures 5–6. The method by which we incorporate the effect of seasonality into our model is a well-known method used in many papers (e.g. [27,29,30,31,32,33,34]). The estimated transmission probabilities obtained for Zika between A. aegypti mosquitoes and humans are within the ranges given by the literature.
For each approach, we then solve the ODEs and PDEs using the programming language R and produced results in the long- and short-term which will help us with future planning and control policies for Zika in relation to microcephaly. We have introduced an additional differential equation dM(t)/dt into our model where M(t) represents the total cumulative expected future number of cases of microcephaly from the start up to a given time. Numerical simulations are then produced throughout the paper to give our results. Note that the techniques we used in this paper can be applied to any countries that have Zika or even other mosquito-born diseases such as dengue, yellow fever and chikungunya which are all spread by A. aegypti mosquitoes or other mosquito-born diseases, for example malaria.
In Sections 4 and 5, we focussed on the age-structured Zika model with and without seasonality respectively. In both cases we have used the differential equation
dM(t)dt=15μH∫∞0IH(ξ,t−ˉτ)dξ×P1,
(6.1)
where ˉτ is the time from the midpoint of the first trimester to birth. This is based on the observation that the average duration of infection is 6 days and the first trimester of pregnancy lasts 90 days. So assuming as a simplification that each infection lasts exactly 6 days and the level of infection during the first trimester of individuals giving birth now was approximately constant at the midpoint of that 6-day interval a slightly more accurate but more complex version is given by
where ˉτ1 is three days into the first trimester, the midpoint of the first infectious period of pregnancy, ˉτ2 is nine days into the first trimester, ˉτ3 is fifteen days into the first trimester … and so on up to ˉτ15 which is three days before the end of the first trimester.
However if the age-related fertility rate for Brazil is available then we can use an alternative approach in working out the expected number of cases of microcephaly. To be more specific the new differential equation for dM(t)dt will become
dM(t)dt=152∫∞0IH(ξ,t−ˉτ)f(ξ,t−τ1)dξ×P1.
(6.3)
Here f(ξ,t) represents the age-related fertility rates for different age-groups in Brazil, τ1 is 270 days which is the average length of a pregnancy and ˉτ is 225 days which is the average length of time from the midpoint of the first trimester to delivery. P1 is defined as before. Equation (6.3) is derived from Eq (6.1) by introducing the age-dependent fertility rate and dividing by two as only females reproduce. However if we decide to use this approach then the population size will vary with respect to time and thus we would also need to use age-related birth and death rates. As a result the age-structured model would become significantly more complicated.
As before we can make this model more accurate by dividing the first trimester up into fifteen distinct six day periods and using the midpoint of each instead of a single approximation at the midpoint of the first trimester to give
The first Zika case was first reported in Brazil in 2015. Since then there has been a rapid increase in the number of Zika cases all across the country. According to the report given by [35], the number of Zika cases in Brazil reached its peak in Week 6 of 2016 with around 17,800 suspected cases of which around 11,000 of them were confirmed. From the report given in [35], between 2016 and 2017, various states in the central-West region of Brazil have recorded high Zika incidence rates as shown in Table 15.
Table 15.
Zika incidence rates in States of Brazil [35].
For the purposes of comparison of the figures obtained in this paper with actual data, at April 23, 2016, the number of confirmed and suspected cases of microcephaly was 4,908, just one case more than a week earlier. Of these the number of confirmed cases climbed to 1,198 from 1,168 a week earlier. Brazil had registered 91,387 likely cases of Zika infection in the period February until April 2, 2016 with the most diagnoses in Rio de Janeiro [36]. In addition from another report [37], for the period between August 2015 up to June 25th, 2016, there were 8,165 notified microcephaly cases in Brazil of which 1,638 were confirmed, 3,466 excluded and 3,061 under investigation.
We may ask which of our four models performs the best. We know that for other mosquito-borne diseases the mosquito population varies according to the time of year. Additionally by comparing the data fitting results from the Zika model against the results from the Zika model with seasonality, the ones with seasonality provide a better fit against the real Zika data in Brazil. Moreover as fertility rates vary with age we expect the age-structured models to be more accurate. Hence in general the age-structured seasonal model should give the best answer. Note that as we had data only for a relatively short timescale it was difficult to estimate parameters for the seasonal models. Also the age-structured models could predict the short-term incidence of microcephaly but because of the computing power needed they could not predict long-term endemic levels of microcephaly cases. Thus all of the models have different advantages and disadvantages.
One of the motivations behind this paper is the recent discovery of the connection between the Zika virus and microcephaly and other birth defects in newborns. It is important for us to understand how many of the microcephaly cases are directly caused by pregnant women being exposed to Zika and thus its impact on pregnant women travelling to countries infected with the Zika virus. Therefore, we have obtained simulations which allow us to calculate the expected future number of cases of microcephaly as a result of women being pregnant and thus infected with Zika during their first trimester of pregnancy. Furthermore, the technique used here can be applied to analysing the association between the Zika virus and other birth defects such as Guillain-Barré Syndrome. These results will be beneficial for policy makers in deciding the risk involved for pregnant women travelling to countries infected with Zika.
The models discussed in this paper assume that the transmission of Zika in Brazil occurs in a homogeneous fashion within a single population. Of course this assumption is not realistic as Brazil has a huge human population distributed over a large area. Thus transmission parameters will in practice vary throughout the country. Moreover climatic conditions and socio-economic variables such as urban or rural settings vary greatly through the country causing different population dynamics for vector populations. Therefore using a single parameter for mosquito populations may not be realistic even if assuming an average value. So ideally we should break down the population into smaller regions and use different parameters for each region. However such data are difficult to find.
In addition epidemic models commonly assume a homogeneously mixing population as an approximation. For example Agusto et al. [38] model malaria transmission using a host-vector model in different regions of Africa using a geographically homogeneous model. Some of the parameters are temperature dependent but there is no other spatial geographical variability. Koutou et al. [39] apply a homogeneous host-vector model for malaria transmission to model vector population growth and malaria virus transmission to humans. Coudeville and Garnett [40] applied a geographically heterogeneous host-vector model to estimate the potential impact of dengue vaccination in South Vietnam. Maier et al. [41] used a spatially geographically heterogeneous host-vector model to analyse the effect of the Sanofi Pasteur vaccine Dengvaxia in Brazil. Gao et al. [42] discuss a homogeneously mixing compartmental model for the transmission of Zika and apply it to data in Brazil, Colombia and El Salvador. This applies the same model parameters to the three countries and their model provides good fits to the observed data. Wang et al. [43] discuss modelling and control of Zika in Brazil using the Wolbachia parasite. They also use a spatially geographically homogeneous model.
Amaku et al. [44,45] deploy a similar geographically homogeneous disease transmission model to estimate the prevalence of undiagnosed hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections across the whole of Brazil. Similarly to Zika the actual disease transmission parameters, for example needle sharing rates for HCV, will vary throughout Brazil, but a spatially homogeneous model is used as an approximation.
The models discussed in this paper consider only transmission of Zika between humans and mosquitoes. Other potential transmission routes such as sexual transmission and vertical transmission from an infected human mother to her child have not been included. Vertical transmission of Zika can occur but is thought to be rare. Recent studies have shown that although sexual transmission of Zika can occur this is a very small component of disease transmission and also recent evidence suggests that the risk of sexual transmission of Zika may dissipate quickly [46,47]. There is also a good deal of uncertainty about the effect of sexual transmission [48].
Several previous models have been developed to model the spread of the Zika virus. Kucharski et al. [49] study a mathematical model for the 2013–2014 French Polynesia outbreak. This model focusses on human vector transmission which it says is the main transmission method. Funk et al. [50] compares three outbreaks of dengue and Zika virus in two different island settings in Micronesia, the Yap main island and Fais using a mathematical model. Again they focus on host-vector transmission and ignore the effects of sexual transmission.
Majumder et al. [51] also say that Zika virus is primarily transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes although evidence of vertical human to human and sexual transmission between humans exists. The basic reproduction number was estimated from data.
In their model Gao et al. [42] also include sexual transmission of Zika. They find that it plays a small part in Zika transmission, contributing about 3.04% to the R0 value and 4.44% of the total transmission attack rate, although the confidence intervals for these percentages are quite large. Sexual transmission seems to be modelled crudely as a disease spread by direct contact rather than by dividing the population into males and females. Wang et al. [43] develop a model for using the Wolbachia bacteria to control Zika. They include sexual transmission between humans but again model it crudely as a disease spread by direct contact. Moreover again from their estimated parameter values it seems as though the effect of sexual transmission is small compared with the route between humans and vectors.
Hence although human to human vertical and sexual transmission of Zika exist their effect is small compared with spread between humans and mosquitoes and also computationally difficult to model accurately as this would increase the model complexity. Therefore we follow Kucharski et al. [49] and Funk et al. [50] and do not explicitly include either vertical or sexual human transmission in our model.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the EPSRC and the University of Strathclyde for support for this work under the EPSRC Global Challenges Research Fund Institutional Award 2016 (EPSRC grant reference number EP/P511055/1) and the British Council, Malaysia for funding from the Dengue Tech Challenge (Application Reference DTC 16022). DG is grateful to the Science Without Borders Program, Brazil, for a Special Visiting Fellowship (CNPq grant 30098/2014-7), with Professor E. Massad, Department of Legal Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil, and to the Leverhulme Trust for support from a Leverhulme Research Fellowship (RF-2015-88).
Conflict of interest
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
References
[1]
EI Hendouzi A, Bourouhou A (2020) Solar Photovoltaic Power Forecasting. J Electr Comput Eng 2020: 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8819925 doi: 10.1155/2020/8819925
[2]
Ürkmez M, Kallesøe C, Dimon Bendtsen J, et al. (2022) Day-ahead pv power forecasting for control applications. IECON 2022, 48th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, Brussels, Belgium, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/IECON49645.2022.9968709
[3]
Cheng S, Prentice IC, Huang Y, et al. (2022) Data-driven surrogate model with latent data assimilation: Application to wildfire forecasting. J Comput Phys 464: 111302. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCP.2022.111302 doi: 10.1016/J.JCP.2022.111302
[4]
Cheng S, Jin Y, Harrison SP, et al. (2022) Parameter Flexible Wildfire Prediction Using Machine Learning Techniques: Forward and Inverse Modelling. Remote Sens 14: 3228. https://doi.org/10.3390/RS14133228 doi: 10.3390/RS14133228
[5]
Zhong C, Cheng S, Kasoar M, et al. (2023) Reduced-order digital twin and latent data assimilation for global wildfire prediction. Nat Hazard Earth Sys 23: 1755–1768. https://doi.org/10.5194/NHESS-23-1755-2023 doi: 10.5194/NHESS-23-1755-2023
[6]
Gupta P, Singh R (2021) PV power forecasting based on data-driven models: a review. Int J Sustain Eng 14: 1733–1755. https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2021.1986590 doi: 10.1080/19397038.2021.1986590
[7]
López Santos M, García-Santiago X, Echevarría Camarero F, et al. (2022) Application of Temporal Fusion Transformer for Day-Ahead PV Power Forecasting. Energies 15: 5232. https://doi.org/10.3390/EN15145232 doi: 10.3390/EN15145232
[8]
Kanchana W, Sirisukprasert S (2020) PV Power Forecasting with Holt-Winters Method. 2020 8th International Electrical Engineering Congress (IEECON), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEECON48109.2020.229517
[9]
Dhingra S, Gruosso G, Gajani GS (2023) Solar PV Power Forecasting and Ageing Evaluation Using Machine Learning Techniques. IECON 2023 49th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/IECON51785.2023.10312446
[10]
Hanif MF, Naveed MS, Metwaly M, et al. (2021) Advancing solar energy forecasting with modified ANN and light GBM learning algorithms. AIMS Energy 12: 350–386. https://doi.org/10.3934/ENERGY.2024017 doi: 10.3934/ENERGY.2024017
[11]
Hanif MF, Siddique MU, Si J, et al. (2021) Enhancing Solar Forecasting Accuracy with Sequential Deep Artificial Neural Network and Hybrid Random Forest and Gradient Boosting Models across Varied Terrains. Adv Theory Simul 7: 2301289. https://doi.org/10.1002/ADTS.202301289 doi: 10.1002/ADTS.202301289
[12]
Musafa A, Priyadi A, Lystianingrum V, et al. (2023) Stored Energy Forecasting of Small-Scale Photovoltaic-Pumped Hydro Storage System Based on Prediction of Solar Irradiance, Ambient Temperature, and Rainfall Using LSTM Method. IECON 2023 49th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/IECON51785.2023.10311982
[13]
Konstantinou M, Peratikou S, Charalambides AG (2021) Solar Photovoltaic Forecasting of Power Output Using LSTM Networks. Atmosphere 12: 124. https://doi.org/10.3390/ATMOS12010124 doi: 10.3390/ATMOS12010124
[14]
Jasiński M, Leonowicz Z, Jasiński J, et al. (2023) PV Advancements & Challenges: Forecasting Techniques, Real Applications, and Grid Integration for a Sustainable Energy Future. 2023 IEEE International Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering and 2023 IEEE Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Europe (EEEIC/I & CPS Europe), Spain, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/EEEIC/ICPSEUROPE57605.2023.10194796
[15]
Cantillo-Luna S, Moreno-Chuquen R, Celeita D, et al. (2023) Deep and Machine Learning Models to Forecast Photovoltaic Power Generation. Energies 16: 4097. https://doi.org/10.3390/EN16104097 doi: 10.3390/EN16104097
[16]
Kaushik AR, Padmavathi S, Gurucharan KS, et al. (2023) Performance Analysis of Regression Models in Solar PV Forecasting. 2023 3rd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Signal Processing (AISP), India, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/AISP57993.2023.10134943
[17]
Halabi LM, Mekhilef S, Hossain M (2018) Performance evaluation of hybrid adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system models for predicting monthly global solar radiation. Appl Energy 213: 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2018.01.035 doi: 10.1016/J.APENERGY.2018.01.035
[18]
Zhang G, Wang X, Du Z (2015) Research on the Prediction of Solar Energy Generation based on Measured Environmental Data. Int J U e-Service Sci Technol 8: 385–402. https://doi.org/10.14257/IJUNESST.2015.8.5.37 doi: 10.14257/IJUNESST.2015.8.5.37
[19]
Peng Q, Zhou X, Zhu R, et al. (2023) A Hybrid Model for Solar Radiation Forecasting towards Energy Efficient Buildings. 2023 7th International Conference on Green Energy and Applications (ICGEA), 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICGEA57077.2023.10125987
[20]
Salisu S, Mustafa MW, Mustapha M (2018) Predicting Global Solar Radiation in Nigeria Using Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Approach. Recent Trends in Information and Communication Technology. IRICT 2017. Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies, 5: 513–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59427-9_54
[21]
Kaur A, Nonnenmacher L, Pedro HTC, et al. (2016) Benefits of solar forecasting for energy imbalance markets. Renewable Energy 86: 819–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2015.09.011 doi: 10.1016/J.RENENE.2015.09.011
[22]
Yang D, Li W, Yagli GM, et al. (2021) Operational solar forecasting for grid integration: Standards, challenges, and outlook. Sol Energy 224: 930–937. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOLENER.2021.04.002 doi: 10.1016/J.SOLENER.2021.04.002
[23]
Shi G, Eftekharnejad S (2016) Impact of solar forecasting on power system planning. 2016 North American Power Symposium (NAPS), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/NAPS.2016.7747909
[24]
Shi J, Guo J, Zheng S (2012) Evaluation of hybrid forecasting approaches for wind speed and power generation time series. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 16: 3471–3480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.02.044 doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.02.044
[25]
Mohanty S, Patra PK, Sahoo SS, et al. (2017) Forecasting of solar energy with application for a growing economy like India: Survey and implication. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 78: 539–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2017.04.107 doi: 10.1016/J.RSER.2017.04.107
[26]
Sweeney C, Bessa RJ, Browell J, et al. (2020) The future of forecasting for renewable energy. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Energy Environ 9: e365. https://doi.org/10.1002/WENE.365 doi: 10.1002/WENE.365
[27]
Brancucci Martinez-Anido C, Botor B, Florita AR, et al. (2016) The value of day-ahead solar power forecasting improvement. Sol Energy 129: 192–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOLENER.2016.01.049 doi: 10.1016/J.SOLENER.2016.01.049
[28]
Inman RH, Pedro HTC, Coimbra CFM (2013) Solar forecasting methods for renewable energy integration. Prog Energy Combust Sci 39: 535–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PECS.2013.06.002 doi: 10.1016/J.PECS.2013.06.002
[29]
Cui M, Zhang J, Hodge BM, et al. (2018) A Methodology for Quantifying Reliability Benefits from Improved Solar Power Forecasting in Multi-Timescale Power System Operations. IEEE T Smart Grid 9: 6897–6908. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2017.2728480 doi: 10.1109/TSG.2017.2728480
[30]
Wang H, Lei Z, Zhang X, et al. (2019) A review of deep learning for renewable energy forecasting. Energy Convers Manage 198: 111799. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2019.111799 doi: 10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2019.111799
[31]
Aupke P, Kassler A, Theocharis A, et al. (2021) Quantifying Uncertainty for Predicting Renewable Energy Time Series Data Using Machine Learning. Eng Proc 5: 50. https://doi.org/10.3390/ENGPROC2021005050 doi: 10.3390/ENGPROC2021005050
[32]
Rajagukguk RA, Ramadhan RAA, Lee HJ (2020) A Review on Deep Learning Models for Forecasting Time Series Data of Solar Irradiance and Photovoltaic Power. Energies 13: 6623. https://doi.org/10.3390/EN13246623 doi: 10.3390/EN13246623
Freitas S, Catita C, Redweik P, et al. (2015) Modelling solar potential in the urban environment: State-of-the-art review. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 41: 915–931. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2014.08.060 doi: 10.1016/J.RSER.2014.08.060
[35]
Gürtürk M, Ucar F, Erdem M (2022) A novel approach to investigate the effects of global warming and exchange rate on the solar power plants. Energy 239: 122344. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2021.122344 doi: 10.1016/J.ENERGY.2021.122344
[36]
Gaye B, Zhang D, Wulamu A (2021) Improvement of Support Vector Machine Algorithm in Big Data Background. Math Probl Eng 2021: 5594899. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5594899 doi: 10.1155/2021/5594899
[37]
Yogambal Jayalakshmi N, Shankar R, Subramaniam U, et al. (2021) Novel Multi-Time Scale Deep Learning Algorithm for Solar Irradiance Forecasting. Energies 14: 2404. https://doi.org/10.3390/EN14092404 doi: 10.3390/EN14092404
[38]
Benti NE, Chaka MD, Semie AG (2023) Forecasting Renewable Energy Generation with Machine Learning and Deep Learning: Current Advances and Future Prospects. Sustainability 15: 7087. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU15097087 doi: 10.3390/SU15097087
[39]
Li J, Ward JK, Tong J, et al. (2016) Machine learning for solar irradiance forecasting of photovoltaic system. Renewable Energy 90: 542–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2015.12.069 doi: 10.1016/J.RENENE.2015.12.069
[40]
Long H, Zhang Z, Su Y (2014) Analysis of daily solar power prediction with data-driven approaches. Appl Energy 126: 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2014.03.084 doi: 10.1016/J.APENERGY.2014.03.084
[41]
Jebli I, Belouadha FZ, Kabbaj MI, et al. (2021) Prediction of solar energy guided by pearson correlation using machine learning. Energy 224: 120109. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2021.120109 doi: 10.1016/J.ENERGY.2021.120109
[42]
Khandakar A, Chowdhury MEH, Kazi MK, et al. (2019) Machine Learning Based Photovoltaics (PV) Power Prediction Using Different Environmental Parameters of Qatar. Energies 12: 2782. https://doi.org/10.3390/EN12142782 doi: 10.3390/EN12142782
[43]
Kim SG, Jung JY, Sim MK (2019) A Two-Step Approach to Solar Power Generation Prediction Based on Weather Data Using Machine Learning. Sustainability 11: 1501. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU11051501 doi: 10.3390/SU11051501
[44]
Gutiérrez L, Patiño J, Duque-Grisales E (2021) A Comparison of the Performance of Supervised Learning Algorithms for Solar Power Prediction. Energies 14: 4424. https://doi.org/10.3390/EN14154424 doi: 10.3390/EN14154424
[45]
Wang Z, Xu Z, Zhang Y, et al. (2020) Optimal Cleaning Scheduling for Photovoltaic Systems in the Field Based on Electricity Generation and Dust Deposition Forecasting. IEEE J Photovolt 10: 1126–1132. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPHOTOV.2020.2981810 doi: 10.1109/JPHOTOV.2020.2981810
[46]
Massaoudi M, Chihi I, Sidhom L, et al. (2021) An Effective Hybrid NARX-LSTM Model for Point and Interval PV Power Forecasting. IEEE Access 9: 36571–36588. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3062776 doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3062776
[47]
Arora I, Gambhir J, Kaur T (2021) Data Normalisation-Based Solar Irradiance Forecasting Using Artificial Neural Networks. Arab J Sci Eng 46: 1333–1343. https://doi.org/10.1007/S13369-020-05140-Y/METRICS doi: 10.1007/S13369-020-05140-Y/METRICS
[48]
Alipour M, Aghaei J, Norouzi M, et al. (2020) A novel electrical net-load forecasting model based on deep neural networks and wavelet transform integration. Energy 205: 118106. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2020.118106 doi: 10.1016/J.ENERGY.2020.118106
[49]
Zolfaghari M, Golabi MR (2021) Modeling and predicting the electricity production in hydropower using conjunction of wavelet transform, long short-term memory and random forest models. Renewable Energy 170: 1367–1381. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2021.02.017 doi: 10.1016/J.RENENE.2021.02.017
[50]
Li FF, Wang SY, Wei JH (2018) Long term rolling prediction model for solar radiation combining empirical mode decomposition (EMD) and artificial neural network (ANN) techniques. J Renewable Sustainable Energy 10: 013704. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4999240 doi: 10.1063/1.4999240
[51]
Wang S, Guo Y, Wang Y, et al. (2021) A Wind Speed Prediction Method Based on Improved Empirical Mode Decomposition and Support Vector Machine. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, IOP Publishing. 680: 012012. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/680/1/012012
[52]
Moreno SR, dos Santos Coelho L (2018) Wind speed forecasting approach based on Singular Spectrum Analysis and Adaptive Neuro Fuzzy Inference System. Renewable Energy 126: 736–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2017.11.089 doi: 10.1016/J.RENENE.2017.11.089
[53]
Zhang Y, Le J, Liao X, et al. (2019) A novel combination forecasting model for wind power integrating least square support vector machine, deep belief network, singular spectrum analysis and locality-sensitive hashing. Energy 168: 558–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2018.11.128 doi: 10.1016/J.ENERGY.2018.11.128
[54]
Espinar B, Aznarte JL, Girard R, et al. (2010) Photovoltaic Forecasting: A state of the art. 5th European PV-hybrid and mini-grid conference. OTTI-Ostbayerisches Technologie-Transfer-Institut.
[55]
Moreno-Munoz A, De La Rosa JJG, Posadillo R, et al. (2008) Very short term forecasting of solar radiation. 2008 33rd IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, San Diego, CA, USA. https://doi.org/10.1109/PVSC.2008.4922587
[56]
Anderson D, Leach M (2004) Harvesting and redistributing renewable energy: on the role of gas and electricity grids to overcome intermittency through the generation and storage of hydrogen. Energy Policy 32: 1603–1614. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(03)00131-9 doi: 10.1016/S0301-4215(03)00131-9
[57]
Zhang J, Zhao L, Deng S, et al. (2017) A critical review of the models used to estimate solar radiation. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 70: 314–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2016.11.124 doi: 10.1016/J.RSER.2016.11.124
[58]
Coimbra CFM, Kleissl J, Marquez R (2013) Overview of Solar-Forecasting Methods and a Metric for Accuracy Evaluation. Sol Energy Forecast Resour Assess, 171–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-397177-7.00008-5 doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-397177-7.00008-5
[59]
Miller SD, Rogers MA, Haynes JM, et al. (2018) Short-term solar irradiance forecasting via satellite/model coupling. Sol Energy 168: 102–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOLENER.2017.11.049 doi: 10.1016/J.SOLENER.2017.11.049
[60]
Kumari P, Toshniwal D (2021) Deep learning models for solar irradiance forecasting: A comprehensive review. J Cleaner Prod 318: 128566. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2021.128566 doi: 10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2021.128566
[61]
Hassan GE, Youssef ME, Mohamed ZE, et al. (2016) New Temperature-based Models for Predicting Global Solar Radiation. Appl Energy 179: 437–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2016.07.006 doi: 10.1016/J.APENERGY.2016.07.006
[62]
Angstrom A (1924) Solar and terrestrial radiation. Report to the international commission for solar research on actinometric investigations of solar and atmospheric radiation. Q J R Meteorol Soc 50: 121–126. https://doi.org/10.1002/QJ.49705021008 doi: 10.1002/QJ.49705021008
[63]
Samuel TDMA (1991) Estimation of global radiation for Sri Lanka. Sol Energy 47: 333–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-092X(91)90026-S doi: 10.1016/0038-092X(91)90026-S
[64]
Ögelman H, Ecevit A, Tasdemiroǧlu E (1984) A new method for estimating solar radiation from bright sunshine data. Sol Energy 33: 619–625. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-092X(84)90018-5 doi: 10.1016/0038-092X(84)90018-5
[65]
Badescu V, Gueymard CA, Cheval S, et al. (2013) Accuracy analysis for fifty-four clear-sky solar radiation models using routine hourly global irradiance measurements in Romania. Renewable Energy 55: 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2012.11.037 doi: 10.1016/J.RENENE.2012.11.037
[66]
Mecibah MS, Boukelia TE, Tahtah R, et al. (2014) Introducing the best model for estimation the monthly mean daily global solar radiation on a horizontal surface (Case study: Algeria). Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 36: 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2014.04.054 doi: 10.1016/J.RSER.2014.04.054
[67]
Hargreaves GH, Samani ZA (1982) Estimating Potential Evapotranspiration. J Irrig Drain Div 108: 225–230. https://doi.org/10.1061/JRCEA4.0001390 doi: 10.1061/JRCEA4.0001390
[68]
Bristow KL, Campbell GS (1984) On the relationship between incoming solar radiation and daily maximum and minimum temperature. Agric For Meteorol 31: 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1923(84)90017-0 doi: 10.1016/0168-1923(84)90017-0
[69]
Chen JL, He L, Yang H, et al. (2019) Empirical models for estimating monthly global solar radiation: A most comprehensive review and comparative case study in China. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 108: 91–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.03.033 doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2019.03.033
[70]
Chen Y, Zhang S, Zhang W, et al. (2019) Multifactor spatio-temporal correlation model based on a combination of convolutional neural network and long short-term memory neural network for wind speed forecasting. Energy Convers Manage 185: 783–799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.02.01 doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2019.02.01
[71]
Siddiqui TA, Bharadwaj S, Kalyanaraman S (2019) A Deep Learning Approach to Solar-Irradiance Forecasting in Sky-Videos. 2019 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), 2166–2174. https://doi.org/10.1109/WACV.2019.00234
[72]
Nie Y, Li X, Paletta Q, et al. (2024) Open-source sky image datasets for solar forecasting with deep learning: A comprehensive survey. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 189: 113977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113977 doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2023.113977
Brahma B, Wadhvani R (2020) Solar Irradiance Forecasting Based on Deep Learning Methodologies and Multi-Site Data. Symmetry 12: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12111830 doi: 10.3390/sym12111830
[75]
Paletta Q, Terrén-Serrano G, Nie Y, et al. (2023) Advances in solar forecasting: Computer vision with deep learning. Adv Appl Energy 11: 100150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adapen.2023.100150 doi: 10.1016/j.adapen.2023.100150
[76]
Ghimire S, Deo RC, Raj N, et al. (2019) Deep solar radiation forecasting with convolutional neural network and long short-term memory network algorithms. Appl Energy 253: 113541. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2019.113541 doi: 10.1016/J.APENERGY.2019.113541
[77]
Elsaraiti M, Merabet A (2022) Solar Power Forecasting Using Deep Learning Techniques. IEEE Access 10: 31692–31698. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3160484 doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3160484
[78]
Reikard G (2009) Predicting solar radiation at high resolutions: A comparison of time series forecasts. Sol Energy 83: 342–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOLENER.2008.08.007 doi: 10.1016/J.SOLENER.2008.08.007
[79]
Yang D, Jirutitijaroen P, Walsh WM (2012) Hourly solar irradiance time series forecasting using cloud cover index. Sol Energy 86: 3531–3543. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOLENER.2012.07.029 doi: 10.1016/J.SOLENER.2012.07.029
[80]
Jaihuni M, Basak JK, Khan F, et al. (2020) A Partially Amended Hybrid Bi-GRU—ARIMA Model (PAHM) for Predicting Solar Irradiance in Short and Very-Short Terms. Energies 13: 435. https://doi.org/10.3390/EN13020435 doi: 10.3390/EN13020435
[81]
Verbois H, Huva R, Rusydi A, et al. (2018) Solar irradiance forecasting in the tropics using numerical weather prediction and statistical learning. Sol Energy 162: 265–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.01.007 doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2018.01.007
[82]
Munkhammar J, van der Meer D, Widén J (2019) Probabilistic forecasting of high-resolution clear-sky index time-series using a Markov-chain mixture distribution model. Sol Energy 184: 688–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.04.014 doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2019.04.014
[83]
Dong J, Olama MM, Kuruganti T, et al. (2020) Novel stochastic methods to predict short-term solar radiation and photovoltaic power. Renewable Energy 145: 333–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.05.073 doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2019.05.073
[84]
Ahmad T, Zhang D, Huang C (2021) Methodological framework for short-and medium-term energy, solar and wind power forecasting with stochastic-based machine learning approach to monetary and energy policy applications. Energy 231: 120911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.120911 doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2021.120911
[85]
Box GE, Jenkins GM, Reinsel GC, et al. (2015) Time series analysis: Forecasting and control, John Wiley & Sons.
[86]
Louzazni M, Mosalam H, Khouya A (2020) A non-linear auto-regressive exogenous method to forecast the photovoltaic power output. Sustain Energy Techn 38: 100670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2020.100670 doi: 10.1016/j.seta.2020.100670
[87]
Larson DP, Nonnenmacher L, Coimbra CFM (2016) Day-ahead forecasting of solar power output from photovoltaic plants in the American Southwest. Renewable Energy 91: 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.01.039 doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2016.01.039
[88]
Sharma V, Yang D, Walsh W, et al. (2016) Short term solar irradiance forecasting using a mixed wavelet neural network. Renewable Energy 90: 481–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2016.01.020 doi: 10.1016/J.RENENE.2016.01.020
[89]
Kumari P, Toshniwal D (2020) Real-time estimation of COVID-19 cases using machine learning and mathematical models-The case of India. 2020 IEEE 15th International Conference on Industrial and Information Systems, 369–374. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIIS51140.2020.9342735
[90]
Ahmad MW, Mourshed M, Rezgui Y (2018) Tree-based ensemble methods for predicting PV power generation and their comparison with support vector regression. Energy 164: 465–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2018.08.207 doi: 10.1016/J.ENERGY.2018.08.207
[91]
Wang Z, Wang Y, Zeng R, et al. (2018) Random Forest based hourly building energy prediction. Energy Buildings 171: 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2018.04.008 doi: 10.1016/J.ENBUILD.2018.04.008
[92]
Zou L, Wang L, Lin A, et al. (2016) Estimation of global solar radiation using an artificial neural network based on an interpolation technique in southeast China. J Atmos Sol-Terr Phys 146: 110–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JASTP.2016.05.013 doi: 10.1016/J.JASTP.2016.05.013
[93]
Mellit A, Benghanem M, Kalogirou SA (2006) An adaptive wavelet-network model for forecasting daily total solar-radiation. Appl Energy 83: 705–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2005.06.003 doi: 10.1016/J.APENERGY.2005.06.003
[94]
Çelik Ö, Teke A, Yildirim HB (2016) The optimized artificial neural network model with Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm for global solar radiation estimation in Eastern Mediterranean Region of Turkey. J Cleaner Prod 116: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2015.12.082 doi: 10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2015.12.082
[95]
Rehman S, Mohandes M (2008) Artificial neural network estimation of global solar radiation using air temperature and relative humidity. Energy Policy 36: 571–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2007.09.033 doi: 10.1016/J.ENPOL.2007.09.033
[96]
Gürel AE, Ağbulut Ü, Biçen Y (2020) Assessment of machine learning, time series, response surface methodology and empirical models in prediction of global solar radiation. J Cleaner Prod 277: 122353. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2020.122353 doi: 10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2020.122353
[97]
Díaz-Gómez J, Parrales A, Á lvarez A, et al. (2015) Prediction of global solar radiation by artificial neural network based on a meteorological environmental data. Desalin Water Treat 55: 3210–3217. https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2014.939861 doi: 10.1080/19443994.2014.939861
[98]
Rocha PAC, Fernandes JL, Modolo AB, et al. (2019) Estimation of daily, weekly and monthly global solar radiation using ANNs and a long data set: a case study of Fortaleza, in Brazilian Northeast region. Int J Energy Environ Eng 10: 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/S40095-019-0313-0/TABLES/6 doi: 10.1007/S40095-019-0313-0/TABLES/6
[99]
Rezrazi A, Hanini S, Laidi M (2016) An optimisation methodology of artificial neural network models for predicting solar radiation: a case study. Theor Appl Climatol 123: 769–783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-015-1398-x doi: 10.1007/s00704-015-1398-x
[100]
Pang Z, Niu F, O'Neill Z (2020) Solar radiation prediction using recurrent neural network and artificial neural network: A case study with comparisons. Renewable Energy 156: 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2020.04.042 doi: 10.1016/J.RENENE.2020.04.042
[101]
Toth E, Brath A, Montanari A (2000) Comparison of short-term rainfall prediction models for real-time flood forecasting. J Hydrol 239: 132–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00344-9 doi: 10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00344-9
Ren J, Ren B, Zhang Q, et al. (2019) A Novel Hybrid Extreme Learning Machine Approach Improved by K Nearest Neighbor Method and Fireworks Algorithm for Flood Forecasting in Medium and Small Watershed of Loess Region. Water 11: 1848. https://doi.org/10.3390/W11091848 doi: 10.3390/W11091848
[104]
Larose DT, Larose CD (2014) k‐Nearest Neighbor Algorithm. Discovering Knowledge in Data: An Introduction to Data Mining, Second Edition, 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118874059.CH7
[105]
Sutton C (2012) Nearest-neighbor methods. WIREs Comput Stat 4: 307–309. https://doi.org/10.1002/WICS.1195 doi: 10.1002/WICS.1195
[106]
Chen JL, Li GS, Xiao BB, et al. (2015) Assessing the transferability of support vector machine model for estimation of global solar radiation from air temperature. Energy Convers Manage 89: 318–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.10.004 doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2014.10.004
[107]
Shamshirband S, Mohammadi K, Tong CW, et al. (2016) A hybrid SVM-FFA method for prediction of monthly mean global solar radiation. Theor Appl Climatol 125: 53–65.
[108]
Olatomiwa L, Mekhilef S, Shamshirband S, et al. (2015) Potential of support vector regression for solar radiation prediction in Nigeria. Nat Hazards 77: 1055–1068. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1641-x doi: 10.1007/s11069-015-1641-x
[109]
Ramedani Z, Omid M, Keyhani A, et al. (2014) Potential of radial basis function based support vector regression for global solar radiation prediction. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 39: 1005–1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2014.07.108 doi: 10.1016/J.RSER.2014.07.108
[110]
Olatomiwa L, Mekhilef S, Shamshirband S, et al. (2015) A support vector machine-firefly algorithm-based model for global solar radiation prediction. Sol Energy 115: 632–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2015.03.015 doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2015.03.015
[111]
Mohammadi K, Shamshirband S, Danesh AS, et al. (2016) Temperature-based estimation of global solar radiation using soft computing methodologies. Theor Appl Climatol 125: 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-015-1487-x doi: 10.1007/s00704-015-1487-x
[112]
Hassan MA, Khalil A, Kaseb S, et al. (2017) Potential of four different machine-learning algorithms in modeling daily global solar radiation. Renewable Energy 111: 52–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.03.083 doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2017.03.083
[113]
Quej VH, Almorox J, Arnaldo JA, et al. (2017) ANFIS, SVM and ANN soft-computing techniques to estimate daily global solar radiation in a warm sub-humid environment. J Atmos Sol-Terr Phys 155: 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JASTP.2017.02.002 doi: 10.1016/J.JASTP.2017.02.002
[114]
Baser F, Demirhan H (2017) A fuzzy regression with support vector machine approach to the estimation of horizontal global solar radiation. Energy 123: 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.02.008 doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.02.008
[115]
Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45: 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324 doi: 10.1023/A:1010933404324
[116]
Fernández-Delgado M, Cernadas E, Barro S, et al. (2014) Do we need hundreds of classifiers to solve real world classification problems? J Mach Learn Res 15: 3133–3181.
[117]
Ke G, Meng Q, Finley T, et al. (2017) Lightgbm: A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree. Adv Neural Inf Proc Syst, 30.
[118]
Wang Y, Pan Z, Zheng J, et al. (2019) A hybrid ensemble method for pulsar candidate classification. Astrophys Space Sci 364: 139 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10509-019-3602-4 doi: 10.1007/s10509-019-3602-4
[119]
Si Z, Yang M, Yu Y, et al. (2021) Photovoltaic power forecast based on satellite images considering effects of solar position. Appl Energy 302: 117514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117514 doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117514
[120]
Chung J, Gulcehre C, Cho K, et al. (2014) Empirical Evaluation of Gated Recurrent Neural Networks on Sequence Modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1412.3555.
[121]
Wang Y, Liao W, Chang Y (2018) Gated Recurrent Unit Network-Based Short-Term Photovoltaic Forecasting. Energies 11: 2163. https://doi.org/10.3390/EN11082163 doi: 10.3390/EN11082163
[122]
Pazikadin AR, Rifai D, Ali K, et al. (2020) Solar irradiance measurement instrumentation and power solar generation forecasting based on Artificial Neural Networks (ANN): A review of five years research trend. Sci Total Environ 715: 136848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136848 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136848
[123]
Wang F, Xuan Z, Zhen Z, et al. (2020) A day-ahead PV power forecasting method based on LSTM-RNN model and time correlation modification under partial daily pattern prediction framework. Energy Convers Manage 212: 112766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112766 doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112766
[124]
Zhang J, Yan J, Infield D, et al. (2019) Short-term forecasting and uncertainty analysis of wind turbine power based on long short-term memory network and Gaussian mixture model. Appl Energy 241: 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.03.044 doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.03.044
[125]
Liu H, Mi X, Li Y, et al. (2019) Smart wind speed deep learning based multi-step forecasting model using singular spectrum analysis, convolutional Gated Recurrent Unit network and Support Vector Regression. Renewable Energy 143: 842–854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.05.039 doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2019.05.039
[126]
Tealab A (2018) Time series forecasting using artificial neural networks methodologies: A systematic review. Future Comput Inf J 3: 334–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcij.2018.10.003 doi: 10.1016/j.fcij.2018.10.003
[127]
Dong N, Chang JF, Wu AG, et al. (2020) A novel convolutional neural network framework based solar irradiance prediction method. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 114: 105411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2019.105411 doi: 10.1016/j.ijepes.2019.105411
[128]
Hinton GE, Srivastava N, Krizhevsky A, et al. (2012) Improving neural networks by preventing co-adaptation of feature detectors.
[129]
Han Z, Zhao J, Leung H, et al. (2021) A Review of Deep Learning Models for Time Series Prediction. IEEE Sens J 21: 7833–7848. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2019.2923982 doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2019.2923982
[130]
Shi X, Chen Z, Wang H, et al. (2015) Convolutional LSTM Network: A Machine Learning Approach for Precipitation Nowcasting. Adv Neural Inf Proc Syst, 28.
[131]
Oord A van den, Dieleman S, Zen H, et al. (2016) WaveNet: A Generative Model for Raw Audio. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1609.03499. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1609.03499
[132]
Bai S, Kolter JZ, Koltun V (2018) An Empirical Evaluation of Generic Convolutional and Recurrent Networks for Sequence Modeling. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1803.01271
[133]
Vaswani A, Brain G, Shazeer N, et al. (2017) Attention Is All You Need. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1706.03762.
[134]
Zang H, Liu L, Sun L, et al. (2020) Short-term global horizontal irradiance forecasting based on a hybrid CNN-LSTM model with spatiotemporal correlations. Renewable Energy 160: 26–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.05.150 doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2020.05.150
[135]
Qu J, Qian Z, Pei Y (2021) Day-ahead hourly photovoltaic power forecasting using attention-based CNN-LSTM neural network embedded with multiple relevant and target variables prediction pattern. Energy 232: 120996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.120996 doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2021.120996
[136]
Schmidhuber J, Hochreiter S (1997) Long Short-Term Memory. Neural Comput 9: 1735–1780. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735 doi: 10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735
[137]
Venkatraman A, Hebert M, Bagnell J (2015) Improving Multi-Step Prediction of Learned Time Series Models. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 29. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v29i1.9590 doi: 10.1609/aaai.v29i1.9590
[138]
Muhammad, Kennedy J, Lim CW (2022) Machine learning and deep learning in phononic crystals and metamaterials—A review. Mater Today Commun 33: 104606. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MTCOMM.2022.104606 doi: 10.1016/J.MTCOMM.2022.104606
[139]
Yao G, Lei T, Zhong J (2019) A review of Convolutional-Neural-Network-based action recognition. Pattern Recogn Lett 118: 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PATREC.2018.05.018 doi: 10.1016/J.PATREC.2018.05.018
[140]
Akram MW, Li G, Jin Y, et al. (2019) CNN based automatic detection of photovoltaic cell defects in electroluminescence images. Energy 189: 116319. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2019.116319 doi: 10.1016/J.ENERGY.2019.116319
[141]
Bejani MM, Ghatee M (2021) A systematic review on overfitting control in shallow and deep neural networks. Artif Intell Rev 54: 6391–6438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-021-09975-1 doi: 10.1007/s10462-021-09975-1
[142]
McCann MT, Jin KH, Unser M (2017) Convolutional neural networks for inverse problems in imaging: A review. IEEE Signal Proc Mag 34: 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2017.2739299 doi: 10.1109/MSP.2017.2739299
[143]
Qian C, Xu B, Chang L, et al. (2021) Convolutional neural network based capacity estimation using random segments of the charging curves for lithium-ion batteries. Energy 227: 120333. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2021.120333 doi: 10.1016/J.ENERGY.2021.120333
[144]
Liu Y, Guan L, Hou C, et al. (2019) Wind Power Short-Term Prediction Based on LSTM and Discrete Wavelet Transform. Appl Sci 9: 1108. https://doi.org/10.3390/APP9061108 doi: 10.3390/APP9061108
[145]
Husein M, Chung IY (2019) Day-Ahead Solar Irradiance Forecasting for Microgrids Using a Long Short-Term Memory Recurrent Neural Network: A Deep Learning Approach. Energies 12: 1856. https://doi.org/10.3390/EN12101856 doi: 10.3390/EN12101856
[146]
Zhao Z, Chen W, Wu X, et al. (2017) LSTM network: a deep learning approach for short-term traffic forecast. IET Intell Transp Syst 11: 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1049/IET-ITS.2016.0208 doi: 10.1049/IET-ITS.2016.0208
[147]
Suresh V, Janik P, Rezmer J, et al. (2020) Forecasting Solar PV Output Using Convolutional Neural Networks with a Sliding Window Algorithm. Energies 13: 723. https://doi.org/10.3390/EN13030723 doi: 10.3390/EN13030723
[148]
Zameer A, Jaffar F, Shahid F, et al. (2023) Short-term solar energy forecasting: Integrated computational intelligence of LSTMs and GRU. PLoS One 18: e0285410. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285410 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285410
[149]
Bommasani R, Hudson DA, Adeli E, et al. (2021) On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2108.07258.https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2108.07258
[150]
Devlin J (2018) BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1810.04805.
[151]
Mann B, Ryder N, Subbiah M, et al. (2020) Language Models are Few-Shot Learners. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2005.14165, 1.
[152]
Radford A, Kim JW, Hallacy C, et al. (2021) Learning Transferable Visual Models from Natural Language Supervision. International conference on machine learning. PMLR.
[153]
Child R, Gray S, Radford A, et al. (2019) Generating Long Sequences with Sparse Transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1904.10509. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1904.10509
Wang S, Li BZ, Khabsa M, et al. (2020) Linformer: Self-Attention with Linear Complexity. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2006.04768. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2006.04768
[157]
Rae JW, Potapenko A, Jayakumar SM, et al. (2020) Compressive Transformers for Long-Range Sequence Modelling. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1911.05507. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1911.05507
[158]
Dai Z, Yang Z, Yang Y, et al. (2019) Transformer-XL: Attentive Language Models Beyond a Fixed-Length Context. Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2978–2988, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/p19-1285
[159]
Zhou H, Zhang S, Peng J, et al. (2021) Informer: Beyond Efficient Transformer for Long Sequence Time-Series Forecasting. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 35: 11106–11115. https://doi.org/10.1609/AAAI.V35I12.17325 doi: 10.1609/AAAI.V35I12.17325
[160]
Hanif MF, Mi J (2024) Harnessing AI for solar energy: Emergence of transformer models. Appl Energy 369: 123541. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2024.123541 doi: 10.1016/J.APENERGY.2024.123541
[161]
Hussain A, Khan ZA, Hussain T, et al. (2022) A Hybrid Deep Learning-Based Network for Photovoltaic Power Forecasting. Complexity. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7040601 doi: 10.1155/2022/7040601
[162]
Vennila C, Titus A, Sudha TS, et al. (2022) Forecasting Solar Energy Production Using Machine Learning. Int J Photoenergy 2022: 7797488. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7797488 doi: 10.1155/2022/7797488
[163]
So D, Oh J, Leem S, et al. (2023) A Hybrid Ensemble Model for Solar Irradiance Forecasting: Advancing Digital Models for Smart Island Realization. Electronics 12: 2607. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12122607 doi: 10.3390/electronics12122607
[164]
He Y, Liu Y, Shao S, et al. (2019) Application of CNN-LSTM in Gradual Changing Fault Diagnosis of Rod Pumping System. Math Probl Eng 2019: 4203821. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4203821 doi: 10.1155/2019/4203821
[165]
Huang CJ, Kuo PH (2018) A Deep CNN-LSTM Model for Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Forecasting in Smart Cities. Sensors 18: 2220. https://doi.org/10.3390/S18072220 doi: 10.3390/S18072220
[166]
Cao K, Kim H, Hwang C, et al. (2018) CNN-LSTM Coupled Model for Prediction of Waterworks Operation Data. J Inf Process Syst 14: 1508–1520. https://doi.org/10.3745/JIPS.02.0104 doi: 10.3745/JIPS.02.0104
[167]
Swapna G, Soman KP, Vinayakumar R (2018) Automated detection of diabetes using CNN and CNN-LSTM network and heart rate signals. Procedia Comput Sci 132: 1253–1262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.05.041 doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2018.05.041
[168]
Jalali SMJ, Ahmadian S, Kavousi-Fard A, et al. (2022) Automated Deep CNN-LSTM Architecture Design for Solar Irradiance Forecasting. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybernetics Syst 52: 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2021.3093519 doi: 10.1109/TSMC.2021.3093519
[169]
Lim SC, Huh JH, Hong SH, et al. (2022) Solar Power Forecasting Using CNN-LSTM Hybrid Model. Energies 15: 8233. https://doi.org/10.3390/EN15218233 doi: 10.3390/EN15218233
[170]
Covas E (2020) Transfer Learning in Spatial-Temporal Forecasting of the Solar Magnetic Field. Astron Nachr 341: 384–394. https://doi.org/10.1002/ASNA.202013690 doi: 10.1002/ASNA.202013690
[171]
Sheng H, Ray B, Chen K, et al. (2020) Solar Power Forecasting Based on Domain Adaptive Learning. IEEE Access 8: 198580–198590. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3034100 doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3034100
[172]
Ren X, Wang Y, Cao Z, et al. (2023) Feature Transfer and Rapid Adaptation for Few-Shot Solar Power Forecasting. Energies 16: 6211. https://doi.org/10.3390/EN16176211 doi: 10.3390/EN16176211
[173]
Zhou S, Zhou L, Mao M, et al. (2020) Transfer Learning for Photovoltaic Power Forecasting with Long Short-Term Memory Neural Network. 2020 IEEE International Conference on Big Data and Smart Computing (BigComp), Busan, Korea (South), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1109/BIGCOMP48618.2020.00-87
[174]
Soleymani S, Mohammadzadeh S (2023) Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Algorithms for Solar Irradiance Forecasting in Smart Grids. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2310.13791. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.13791
[175]
Sutarna N, Tjahyadi C, Oktivasari P, et al. (2023) Machine Learning Algorithm and Modeling in Solar Irradiance Forecasting. 2023 6th International Conference of Computer and Informatics Engineering (IC2IE), Lombok, Indonesia, 221–225. https://doi.org/10.1109/IC2IE60547.2023.10330942
[176]
Bamisile O, Oluwasanmi A, Ejiyi C, et al. (2022) Comparison of machine learning and deep learning algorithms for hourly global/diffuse solar radiation predictions. Int J Energy Res 46: 10052–10073. https://doi.org/10.1002/ER.6529 doi: 10.1002/ER.6529
[177]
Sahaya Lenin D, Teja Reddy R, Velaga V (2023) Solar Irradiance Forecasting Using Machine Learning. 2023 14th International Conference on Computing Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT), Delhi, India, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCCNT56998.2023.10307660
[178]
Syahab AS, Hermawan A, Avianto D (2023) Global Horizontal Irradiance Prediction using the Algorithm of Moving Average and Exponential Smoothing. JISA 6: 74–81. https://doi.org/10.31326/JISA.V6I1.1649. doi: 10.31326/JISA.V6I1.1649
[179]
Aljanad A, Tan NML, Agelidis VG, et al. (2021) Neural Network Approach for Global Solar Irradiance Prediction at Extremely Short-Time-Intervals Using Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm. Energies 14: 1213. https://doi.org/10.3390/EN14041213 doi: 10.3390/EN14041213
[180]
Mbah OM, Madueke CI, Umunakwe R, et al. (2022) Extreme Gradient Boosting: A Machine Learning Technique for Daily Global Solar Radiation Forecasting on Tilted Surfaces. J Eng Sci 9: E1–E6. https://doi.org/10.21272/JES.2022.9(2).E1 doi: 10.21272/JES.2022.9(2).E1
[181]
Cha J, Kim MK, Lee S, et al. (2021) Investigation of Applicability of Impact Factors to Estimate Solar Irradiance: Comparative Analysis Using Machine Learning Algorithms. Appl Sci 11: 8533. https://doi.org/10.3390/APP11188533 doi: 10.3390/APP11188533
[182]
Reddy KR, Ray PK (2022) Solar Irradiance Forecasting using FFNN with MIG Feature Selection Technique. 2022 International Conference on Intelligent Controller and Computing for Smart Power (ICICCSP), Hyderabad, India, 01–05. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICICCSP53532.2022.9862335
[183]
Chandola D, Gupta H, Tikkiwal VA, et al. (2020) Multi-step ahead forecasting of global solar radiation for arid zones using deep learning. Procedia Comput Sci 167: 626–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.03.329 doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2020.03.329
[184]
Yang Y, Tang Z, Li Z, et al. (2023) Dual-Path Information Fusion and Twin Attention-Driven Global Modeling for Solar Irradiance Prediction. Sensors 23: 7649. https://doi.org/10.3390/S23177469 doi: 10.3390/S23177469
[185]
Meng F, Zou Q, Zhang Z, et al. (2021) An intelligent hybrid wavelet-adversarial deep model for accurate prediction of solar power generation. Energy Rep 7: 2155–2164. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYR.2021.04.019 doi: 10.1016/J.EGYR.2021.04.019
[186]
Kartini UT, Hariyati, Aribowo W, et al. (2022) Development Hybrid Model Deep Learning Neural Network (DL-NN) For Probabilistic Forecasting Solar Irradiance on Solar Cells To Improve Economics Value Added. 2022 Fifth International Conference on Vocational Education and Electrical Engineering (ICVEE), Surabaya, Indonesia, 151–156. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICVEE57061.2022.9930352
[187]
Singla P, Duhan M, Saroha S (2022) A dual decomposition with error correction strategy based improved hybrid deep learning model to forecast solar irradiance. Energy Sources Part A 44: 1583–1607. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2022.2056267 doi: 10.1080/15567036.2022.2056267
[188]
Marinho FP, Rocha PAC, Neto ARR, et al. (2023) Short-Term Solar Irradiance Forecasting Using CNN-1D, LSTM and CNN-LSTM Deep Neural Networks: A Case Study with the Folsom (USA) Dataset. J Sol Energy Eng 145: 041002. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4056122 doi: 10.1115/1.4056122
[189]
Kumari P, Toshniwal D (2021) Long short term memory-convolutional neural network based deep hybrid approach for solar irradiance forecasting. Appl Energy 295: 117061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117061 doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117061
[190]
Elizabeth Michael N, Mishra M, Hasan S, et al. (2022) Short-Term Solar Power Predicting Model Based on Multi-Step CNN Stacked LSTM Technique. Energies 15: 2150. https://doi.org/10.3390/EN15062150 doi: 10.3390/EN15062150
[191]
Srivastava RK, Gupta A (2023) Short term solar irradiation forecasting using Deep neural network with decomposition methods and optimized by grid search algorithm. E3S Web Conf 405. https://doi.org/10.1051/E3SCONF/202340502011 doi: 10.1051/E3SCONF/202340502011
[192]
Ziyabari S, Zhao Z, Du L, et al. (2023) Multi-Branch ResNet-Transformer for Short-Term Spatio-Temporal Solar Irradiance Forecasting. IEEE Trans Ind Appl 59: 5293–5303. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIA.2023.3285202 doi: 10.1109/TIA.2023.3285202
[193]
Carneiro TC, De Carvalho PCM, Dos Santos HA, et al. (2022) Review on Photovoltaic Power and Solar Resource Forecasting: Current Status and Trends. J Sol Energy Eng 144: 010801. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4051652 doi: 10.1115/1.4051652
[194]
Chaibi M, Benghoulam ELM, Tarik L, et al. (2021) An Interpretable Machine Learning Model for Daily Global Solar Radiation Prediction. Energies 14: 7367. https://doi.org/10.3390/EN14217367 doi: 10.3390/EN14217367
[195]
Mason L, González AB de, García-Closas M, et al. (2023) Interpretable, non-mechanistic forecasting using empirical dynamic modeling and interactive visualization. PLoS One 18: e0277149. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.10.21.22281384 doi: 10.1101/2022.10.21.22281384
[196]
Rafati A, Joorabian M, Mashhour E, et al. (2021) High dimensional very short-term solar power forecasting based on a data-driven heuristic method. Energy 219: 119647. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2020.119647 doi: 10.1016/J.ENERGY.2020.119647
[197]
Wang H, Cai R, Zhou B, et al. (2020) Solar irradiance forecasting based on direct explainable neural network. Energy Convers Manage 226: 113487. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2020.113487 doi: 10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2020.113487
[198]
Theocharides S, Makrides G, Livera A, et al. (2020) Day-ahead photovoltaic power production forecasting methodology based on machine learning and statistical post-processing. Appl Energy 268: 115023. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2020.115023 doi: 10.1016/J.APENERGY.2020.115023
This article has been cited by:
1.
Ling Xue, Xinru Cao, Hui Wan,
Releasing Wolbachia-infected mosquitos to mitigate the transmission of Zika virus,
2021,
496,
0022247X,
124804,
10.1016/j.jmaa.2020.124804
Ayesha Nadeem, Muhammad Farhan Hanif, Muhammad Sabir Naveed, Muhammad Tahir Hassan, Mustabshirha Gul, Naveed Husnain, Jianchun Mi. AI-Driven precision in solar forecasting: Breakthroughs in machine learning and deep learning[J]. AIMS Geosciences, 2024, 10(4): 684-734. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2024035
Ayesha Nadeem, Muhammad Farhan Hanif, Muhammad Sabir Naveed, Muhammad Tahir Hassan, Mustabshirha Gul, Naveed Husnain, Jianchun Mi. AI-Driven precision in solar forecasting: Breakthroughs in machine learning and deep learning[J]. AIMS Geosciences, 2024, 10(4): 684-734. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2024035
Table 11.
Expected number of microcephaly cases per year at endemic equilibrium level rounded to the nearest whole number for when a=0.20/day including the effect of seasonality.
Table 12.
Expected number of microcephaly cases over the first 500 weeks rounded to the nearest whole number for when a=0.20/day including the effect of seasonality.
Table 13.
Expected number of microcephaly cases per year at endemic equilibrium level rounded to the nearest whole number for when a=0.50/day including the effect of seasonality.
Table 14.
Expected number of microcephaly cases over the first 500 weeks rounded to the nearest whole number for when a=0.50/day including the effect of seasonality.
Figure 2. Major components of Solar forecasting Models
Figure 3. Machine Learning models classification
Figure 4. Feedforward and recursive neural network
Figure 5. Deep learning models classification
Figure 6. Structure of CNN
Figure 7. Structure of LSTM
Figure 8. Illustration of a single cell of GRU
Figure 9. A foundation model can centralize the information from all the data from various modalities. This one model can then be adapted to a wide range of downstream tasks [149]
Figure 10. Illustration of CNN-LSTM
Figure 11. Model Comparison; (a) ML models for short term forecasting, (b) ML and DL models MAE comparison, and (c) ML and DL Models RMSE comparison