ArticleHeliyon2023
Solar irradiation prediction using empirical and artificial intelligence methods: A comparative review.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transfer learning for solar irradiation prediction in Minas Gerais, Brazil.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Hybrid deep learning CNN-LSTM model for forecasting direct normal irradiance: a study on solar potential in Ghardaia, Algeria.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Solar irradiation data is essential for the feasibility of solar energy projects. Notably, the intermittent nature of solar irradiation influences solar energy use in all forms, whether energy or agriculture. Accurate solar irradiation prediction is the only solution to effectively use solar energy in different forms. The estimation of solar irradiation is the most critical factor for site selection and sizing of solar energy projects and for selecting a suitable crop selection for the area. But the physical measurement of solar irradiation, due to the cost and technology involved, is not possible for all locations across the globe. Numerous techniques have been implemented to predict solar irradiation for this purpose. The two types of approaches that are most frequently employed are empirical techniques and artificial intelligence (AI). Both approaches have demonstrated good accuracy in various places of the world. To find out the best method, a thorough review of research articles discussing solar irradiation prediction has been done to compare different methods for solar irradiation prediction. In this paper, articles predicting solar irradiation using AI and empirical published from 2017 to 2022 have been reviewed, and both methods have been compared. The review showed that AI methods are more accurate than empirical methods. In empirical models, modified sunshine-based models (MSSM) have the highest accuracy, followed by sunshine-based (SSM) and non-sunshine-based models (NSM). The NSM has a little lower accuracy than MSSM and SSM, but the NSM can give good results in sunshine data unavailability. Also, the literature review confirmed that simple empirical models could predict accurately, and increasing the empirical model's polynomial order cannot improve results. Artificial neural networks (ANN) and Hybrid models have the highest accuracy among AI methods, followed by support vector machine (SVM) and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS). The increase in efficiency by hybrid models is minimal, but the complexity of models requires very sophisticated programming knowledge. ANN's most important input factors are maximum and minimum temperatures, temperature differential, relative humidity, clearness index and precipitation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.