ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative analysis of machine learning techniques for temperature and humidity prediction in photovoltaic environments.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- A Dual-FBG Sensor with Machine Learning for Microstrain-Temperature Decoupling Under Cyanoacrylate Bonding Toward Catheter Applications.Micromachines · 2026Article
- Cross-dataset benchmarking of machine learning models for marine and atmospheric environmental prediction.PloS one · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of deep learning architectures in solar power prediction.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This research conducts a comparative analysis of nine Machine Learning (ML) models for temperature and humidity prediction in Photovoltaic (PV) environments. Using a dataset of 5,000 samples (80% for training, 20% for testing), the models-Support Vector Regression (SVR), Lasso Regression, Ridge Regression (RR), Linear Regression (LR), AdaBoost, Gradient Boosting (GB), Decision Tree (DT), Random Forest (RF), and eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost)-were evaluated based on Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), and the Coefficient of Determination (R²). For temperature prediction, XGBoost demonstrated the best performance, achieving the lowest MAE of 1.544, the lowest RMSE of 1.242, and the highest R² of 0.947, indicating strong predictive accuracy. Conversely, SVR had the weakest performance with an MAE of 4.558 and an R² of 0.674. Similarly, for humidity prediction, XGBoost outperformed other models, achieving an MAE of 3.550, RMSE of 1.884, and R² of 0.744, while SVR exhibited the lowest predictive power with an R² of 0.253. This comprehensive study serves as a benchmark for the application of ML models to environmental prediction in PV systems, a research area that is relatively important. Notably, the results underscore the performance advantage of ensemble-based approaches, especially for XGBoost and RF compared to simpler, linear-based methods such as LR and SVR, when it comes to well-dispersed environmental interactions. The proposed machine-learning based power generation analysis approach shows significant improvements in predictive analytics capabilities for renewable energy systems, as well as a means for real-time monitoring and maintenance practices to improve PV performance and reliability.
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.