# Performance Analysis of Statistical, Machine Learning and Deep Learning Models in Long-Term Forecasting of Solar Power Production

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{4}

^{5}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

- Temporal aspect: A time series model considers the temporal aspect of the data, specifically the order in which the data points occur, while functional forecasting modeling is more suited to modeling physical systems, which do not have a specific temporal aspect.
- Complexity: Time series models can be more complex than functional models because they need to consider patterns and trends in the data, which may not be captured by a simpler functional model.
- Feature Engineering: Time series ML models often rely on feature engineering, which is the process of creating new features from the raw data, to improve the prediction performance. Functional forecasting modeling does not require feature engineering.

- Data Assumptions: Time series models assume that the data are generated by a stationary process and make assumptions about the underlying distribution of the data, while Bayesian learning models use Bayes’ theorem to update the probability of a hypothesis as more evidence becomes available.
- Predictive model: Time series models are specifically designed to predict future values of a time series based on historical data, whereas Bayesian learning models can be used for a wide range of applications, including time series forecasting, but they may not be as well-suited to the task as a dedicated time series forecasting model.
- Modeling techniques: Time series machine learning models use techniques such as ARIMA, LSTM, and Prophet to improve the prediction performance, whereas Bayesian learning models use techniques such as Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) and variational inference to estimate the parameters of the model.

- This study aims to provide a comprehensive comparison of popular forecasting models for long-term solar power generation forecasting, an area where there has been limited research.
- The study seeks to understand the relationship between the forecasting model’s input variables and forecasting accuracy.
- The study investigates how the performance of different models changes as the prediction horizon changes.
- The study compares the performance of hybrid and ensemble models to that of single models.
- The study assesses the performance of statistical, ML, DL, and ensemble forecasting models when limited input variables and datasets are available.

## 2. Limitation of the Existing Empirical-Based Forecasting Model

#### 2.1. The Sunshine-Based Model

_{sc}and n are referred to as solar constant (1367 W/m

^{2}) and the number of days starting from 1 January, respectively.

#### 2.2. The Cloud-Based Model

## 3. Materials and Methods

#### 3.1. Data Collection

#### 3.2. Data Pre-Processing

#### 3.3. Data Visualization

#### 3.4. Test-Train Split

#### 3.5. Building a Model

#### 3.6. Model Evaluation

_{i}corresponds to the actual value and Y

_{j}is the forecast value.

## 4. Building a Model

#### 4.1. Univariate Models

#### 4.1.1. Statistical Model (ARIMA)

- p: corresponds to the quantity of lag observation in a model.
- d: corresponds to the number of times the observed value is different from its lagged value.
- q: corresponds to the order of lagged prediction error.

- Seasonality versus non-seasonality

_{t}is time series, p, d, and q are non-seasonal ARIMA parameters, and e

_{t}is the white noise.

_{t−1}

- Stationarity of the data

- Determining p, d, and q parameters

#### 4.1.2. The Machine Learning Model (SVR)

- Terminologies
- 1.
- Hyperplane

- 2.
- Kernel

- 3.
- Support Vectors

- 4.
- Boundary lines

- Importing libraries and training dataset

- Selection of Kernel

- Determining the SVR parameters

- Correlation matrix and predictions

#### 4.1.3. Deep Learning Model (LSTM)

- Gates
- 1.
- Forget gate

_{t}) and previous layer output (y

_{t−1}), and to apply the sigmoid activation function (σ) on the available information. The activation function results in a value of forget gate (f

_{t}) into a binary value (either 0 or 1) [43]. The value of f

_{t}being 1 means remember every piece of information, and the value of f

_{t}being 0 means forget every piece of information. Forget gate (f

_{t}) is calculated as

_{f}is the weight matrix between forget gate and input gate where information is either stored or forgotten, and ${\mathsf{\beta}}_{\mathrm{f}}$ is the gate layer’s bias term.

- 2.
- Input gate

_{t−1}) and current input (X

_{t}) are sent to the sigmoid activation function ($\mathsf{\sigma}$) to determine which values will be updated. Then, to govern the network, the same two inputs are fed into the tanh activation function. Finally, the tanh output (C

_{t}) is multiplied by the sigmoid output (I

_{t}) to determine which information is critical for updating the cell state [1]. Input gate (I

_{t}) is evaluated as,

_{t}= σ(X

_{t}× U

_{i}+ H

_{t−1}× W

_{i})

_{t}= I

_{t}× tanh (C

_{t})

_{i}is the weight matrix of the sigmoid operator between the input and output gate and U

_{i}is the weight matrix of the input.

- 3.
- Output gate

_{t−1}) and current input (x

_{t}) are both sent to the sigmoid activation function, much as the input gate. After going through the sigmoid function, the output is multiplied by the output of the hyperbolic function (tanh) to yield the current hidden state (H

_{t}). The final outputs are the current state (C

_{t}) and the present hidden state (H

_{t}). The following equation governs the output gate [44].

_{t}= σ(X

_{t}× U

_{o}+ H

_{t−1}× W

_{o})

_{t}= O

_{t}× tanh (C

_{t})

_{o}is the weight matrix of the output gate and U

_{i}is the weight matrix of the input.

- Execution steps

- Network Architecture

#### 4.2. Multivariate Models

#### 4.2.1. Multivariate-LSTM

#### 4.2.2. Stacked LSTMs

#### 4.2.3. Bi-Directional LSTM

#### 4.2.4. Encoder-Decoder LSTM

#### 4.2.5. Stacked GRU

#### 4.3. Ensemble Model

#### 4.3.1. Random Forrest (RF)

_{1}, N

_{2}, N

_{3}and N

_{4}features.

#### 4.3.2. ARIMA-LSTM

## 5. Models’ Performance Comparison and Evaluation

#### 5.1. Comparison between Univariate Models (ARIMA, SVR, LSTM)

#### 5.2. Comparison between Different Multivariate Models

#### 5.3. Comparison of Different Ensemble Models

## 6. Discussion

## 7. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Dhakal, R.; Sedai, A.; Pol, S.; Parameswaran, S.; Nejat, A.; Moussa, H. A Novel Hybrid Method for Short-Term Wind Speed Prediction Based on Wind Probability Distribution Function and Machine Learning Models. Appl. Sci.
**2022**, 12, 9038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Pol, S.; Houchens, B.; Marian, D.; Westergaard, C. Performance of AeroMINEs for Distributed Wind Energy. In Proceedings of the AIAA Scitech 2020 Forum, Orlando, FL, USA, 6–10 January 2020; p. 1241. [Google Scholar]
- Dhakal, R.; Yosfovand, M.; Prasai, S.; Sedai, A.; Pol, S.; Parameswaran, S.; Moussa, H. Deep Learning Model with Probability Density Function and Feature Engineering for Short Term Wind Speed Prediction. In Proceedings of the 2022 North American Power Symposium (NAPS), Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 9–11 October 2022; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Natarajan, V.; Karatampati, P. Survey on renewable energy forecasting using different techniques. In Proceedings of the 2019 2nd International Conference on Power and Embedded Drive Control (ICPEDC), Chennai, India, 21–23 August 2019; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 349–354. [Google Scholar]
- Zaouali, K.; Rekik, R.; Bouallegue, R. Deep learning forecasting based on auto-lstm model for home solar power systems. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 20th International Conference on High Performance Computing and Communications; IEEE 16th International Conference on Smart City; IEEE 4th International Conference on Data Science and Systems (Hpcc/Smartcity/Dss), Exeter, UK, 28–30 June 2018; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 235–242. [Google Scholar]
- Samanta, M.; Srikanth, B.; Yerrapragada, J.B. Short-Term Power Forecasting of Solar PV Systems Using Machine Learning Techniques. Environ. Sci. Comput. Sci.
**2014**, 2014, 18566286. [Google Scholar] - Ahn, H.K.; Park, N. Deep RNN-based photovoltaic power short-term forecast using power IoT sensors. Energies
**2021**, 14, 436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Harrou, F.; Kadri, F.; Sun, Y. Forecasting of photovoltaic solar power production using LSTM approach. Adv. Stat. Model. Forecast. Fault Detect. Renew. Energy Syst.
**2020**, 3. [Google Scholar] - Gao, M.; Li, J.; Hong, F.; Long, D. Day-ahead power forecasting in a large-scale photovoltaic plant based on weather classification using LSTM. Energy
**2019**, 187, 115838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sharma, J.; Soni, S.; Paliwal, P.; Saboor, S.; Chaurasiya, P.K.; Sharifpur, M. A novel long term solar photovoltaic power forecasting approach using LSTM with Nadam optimizer: A case study of India. Energy Sci. Eng.
**2022**, 10, 2909–2929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fara, L.; Diaconu, A.; Craciunescu, D.; Fara, S. Forecasting of Energy Production for Photovoltaic Systems Based on ARIMA and ANN Advanced Models. Int. J. Photoenergy
**2021**, 2021, 6777488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sengupta, M.; Habte, A.; Wilbert, S.; Gueymard, C.; Remund, J. Best Practices Handbook for the Collection and Use of Solar Resource Data for Solar Energy Applications; National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Sobri, S.; Koohi-Kamali, S.; Rahim, N.A. Solar photovoltaic generation forecasting methods: A review. Energy Convers. Manag.
**2018**, 156, 459–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Morf, H. Sunshine and cloud cover prediction based on Markov processes. Sol. Energy
**2014**, 110, 615–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fan, J.; Wu, L.; Zhang, F.; Cai, H.; Zeng, W.; Wang, X.; Zou, H. Empirical and machine learning models for predicting daily global solar radiation from sunshine duration: A review and case study in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
**2019**, 100, 186–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wahab, M.A. New approach to estimate Ångström coefficients. Sol. Energy
**1993**, 51, 241–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kumler, A.; Xie, Y.; Zhang, Y. A New Approach for Short-Term Solar Radiation Forecasting Using the Estimation of Cloud Fraction and Cloud Albedo; National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Akinoǧlu, B. A review of sunshine-based models used to estimate monthly average global solar radiation. Renew. Energy
**1991**, 1, 479–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fan, J.; Wang, X.; Zhang, F.; Ma, X.; Wu, L. Predicting daily diffuse horizontal solar radiation in various climatic regions of China using support vector machine and tree-based soft computing models with local and extrinsic climatic data. J. Clean. Prod.
**2020**, 248, 119264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tuohy, A.; Zack, J.; Haupt, S.E.; Sharp, J.; Ahlstrom, M.; Dise, S. Solar forecasting: Methods, challenges, and performance. IEEE Power Energy Mag.
**2015**, 13, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Choudhary, A.; Pandey, D.; Kumar, A. A review of various techniques for solar radiation estimation, In Proceedings of the 2019 3rd International Conference on Recent Developments in Control, Automation & Power Engineering (RDCAPE), Noida, India, 10–11 October 2019; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 169–174. [Google Scholar]
- Dazhi, Y.; Walsh, W.; Zibo, D.; Jirutitijaroen, P.; Reindl, T.G. Block matching algorithms: Their applications and limitations in solar irradiance forecasting. Energy Procedia
**2013**, 33, 335–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Gürel, A.E.; Ağbulut, Ü.; Biçen, Y. Assessment of machine learning, time series, response surface methodology and empirical models in prediction of global solar radiation. J. Clean. Prod.
**2020**, 277, 122353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wang, K.; Qi, X.; Liu, H. A comparison of day-ahead photovoltaic power forecasting models based on deep learning neural network. Appl. Energy
**2019**, 251, 113315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wang, H.; Lei, Z.; Zhang, X.; Zhou, B.; Peng, J. A review of deep learning for renewable energy forecasting. Energy Convers. Manag.
**2019**, 198, 111799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Li, P.; Zhou, K.; Lu, X.; Yang, S. A hybrid deep learning model for short-term PV power forecasting. Appl. Energy
**2020**, 259, 114216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Habte, A.; Sengupta, M.; Lopez, A. Evaluation of the National Solar Radiation Database (NSRDB): 1998–2015; National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Freeman, J.M.; DiOrio, N.A.; Blair, N.J.; Neises, T.W.; Wagner, M.J.; Gilman, P.; Janzou, S. System Advisor Model (SAM) General Description (Version 2017.9. 5); National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Bisong, E. Matplotlib and seaborn. In Building Machine Learning and Deep Learning Models on Google Cloud platform; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 151–165. [Google Scholar]
- Faber, N.K.M. Estimating the uncertainty in estimates of root mean square error of prediction: Application to determining the size of an adequate test set in multivariate calibration. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst.
**1999**, 49, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hillmer, S.C.; Tiao, G.C. An ARIMA-model-based approach to seasonal adjustment. J. Am. Stat. Assoc.
**1982**, 77, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Newbold, P. ARIMA model building and the time series analysis approach to forecasting. J. Forecast.
**1983**, 2, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Noureen, S.; Atique, S.; Roy, V.; Bayne, S. Analysis and application of seasonal ARIMA model in Energy Demand Forecasting: A case study of small scale agricultural load. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 62nd International Midwest Symposium on Circuits and Systems (MWSCAS), Dallas, TX, USA, 4–7 August 2019; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 521–524. [Google Scholar]
- Burnham, K.P.; Anderson, D.R. Multimodel inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociol. Methods Res.
**2004**, 33, 261–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ibrahim, I.; Abdulazeez, A. The role of machine learning algorithms for diagnosing diseases. J. Appl. Sci. Technol. Trends
**2021**, 2, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Behravan, I.; Razavi, S.M. A novel machine learning method for estimating football players’ value in the transfer market. Soft Comput.
**2021**, 25, 2499–2511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhou, D.-X.; Jetter, K. Approximation with polynomial kernels and SVM classifiers. Adv. Comput. Math.
**2006**, 25, 323–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gopi, A.P.; Jyothi, R.; Narayana, V.; Sandeep, K.S. Classification of tweets data based on polarity using improved RBF kernel of SVM. Int. J. Inf. Technol.
**2020**, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wang, J.; Chen, Q.; Chen, Y. RBF kernel based support vector machine with universal approximation and its application. In International Symposium on Neural Networks; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2004; pp. 512–517. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, Q.; Mao, J.; Liu, Y. An improved grid search algorithm of SVR parameters optimization. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE 14th International Conference on Communication Technology, Chengdu, China, 9–11 November 2012; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 1022–1026. [Google Scholar]
- Xue, H.; Huynh, D.; Reynolds, M. SS-LSTM: A hierarchical LSTM model for pedestrian trajectory prediction. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), Lake Tahoe, NV, USA, 12–15 March 2018; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 1186–1194. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Y.; Sun, C.; Lin, L.; Wang, X. Learning natural language inference using bidirectional LSTM model and inner-attention. arXiv Prepr.
**2016**, arXiv:1605.09090. [Google Scholar] - Khatiwada, A.; Kadariya, P.; Agrahari, S.; Dhakal, R. Big Data Analytics and Deep Learning Based Sentiment Analysis System for Sales Prediction. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Pune Section International Conference (PuneCon), Pune, India, 18–20 December 2019; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Yao, K.; Cohn, T.; Vylomova, K.; Duh, K.; Dyer, C. Depth-gated LSTM. arXiv
**2015**, arXiv:1508.03790. [Google Scholar] - Randles, B.M.; Pasquetto, I.; Golshan, M.; Borgman, C.L. Using the Jupyter notebook as a tool for open science: An empirical study. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (JCDL), Toronto, ON, Canada, 19–23 June 2017; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 1–2. [Google Scholar]
- Sundermeyer, M.; Schlüter, R.; Ney, H. LSTM neural networks for language modeling. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Portland, OR, USA, 9–13 September 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Chandriah, K.K.; Naraganahalli, R.V. RNN/LSTM with modified Adam optimizer in deep learning approach for automobile spare parts demand forecasting. Multimed. Tools Appl.
**2021**, 80, 26145–26159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yu, L.; Qu, J.; Gao, F.; Tian, Y. A novel hierarchical algorithm for bearing fault diagnosis based on stacked LSTM. Shock. Vib.
**2019**, 2019, 2756284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhao, R.; Yan, R.; Wang, J.; Mao, K. Learning to monitor machine health with convolutional bi-directional LSTM networks. Sensors
**2017**, 17, 273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Malhotra, P.; Ramakrishnan, A.; Anand, G.; Vig, L.; Agarwal, P.; Shroff, G. LSTM-based encoder-decoder for multi-sensor anomaly detection. arXiv
**2016**, arXiv:1607.00148. [Google Scholar] - Pavithra, M.; Saruladha, K.; Sathyabama, K. GRU based deep learning model for prognosis prediction of disease progression. In Proceedings of the 2019 3rd International Conference on Computing Methodologies and Communication (ICCMC), Tamil Nadu, India, 27–29 March 2019; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 840–844. [Google Scholar]
- Dey, R.; Salem, F.M. Gate-variants of gated recurrent unit (GRU) neural networks. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 60th International Midwest Symposium on Circuits and Systems (MWSCAS), Boston, MA, USA, 6–9 August 2017; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 1597–1600. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, P.; Boukerche, A.; Tao, Y. SSGRU: A novel hybrid stacked GRU-based traffic volume prediction approach in a road network. Comput. Commun.
**2020**, 160, 502–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Leutbecher, M.; Palmer, T.N. Ensemble forecasting. J. Comput. Phys.
**2008**, 227, 3515–3539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Moon, J.; Kim, Y.; Son, M.; Hwang, E. Hybrid short-term load forecasting scheme using random forest and multilayer perceptron. Energies
**2018**, 11, 3283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Bordarie, J. Predicting intentions to comply with speed limits using a ‘decision tree’ applied to an extended version of the theory of planned behaviour. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav.
**2019**, 63, 174–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kumar, M.; Thenmozhi, M. Forecasting stock index movement: A comparison of support vector machines and random forest. In Indian Institute of Capital Markets 9th Capital Markets Conference Paper; Indian Institute of Capital Markets: Navi Mumbai, India, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Andrews, B.H.; Dean, M.; Swain, R.; Cole, C. Building ARIMA and ARIMAX models for predicting long-term disability benefit application rates in the public/private sectors. Soc. Actuar.
**2013**, 1–54. [Google Scholar] - Hashemi, R.; Brigode, P.; Garambois, P.-A.; Javelle, P. How can we benefit from regime information to make more effective use of long short-term memory (LSTM) runoff models? Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
**2022**, 26, 5793–5816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Choi, H.K. Stock price correlation coefficient prediction with ARIMA-LSTM hybrid model. ArXiv
**2018**, arXiv:1808.01560. [Google Scholar] - Fathi, O. Time series forecasting using a hybrid ARIMA and LSTM model. Velv. Consult.
**2019**, 1–7. [Google Scholar]

**Figure 15.**Comparison between the ARIMA, SVR, and LSTM model for solar power forecasting. Row 1, 2, 3 and 4 represents comparison between models for next 1-day, 3-days, 5-days and 15-days prediction respectively. Column 1, 2, 3 represents ARIMA, SVR and LSTM model respectively (red line = actual, blue line = Predicted).

**Figure 18.**Performance of the Stacked LSTM model for predicting 15 days-ahead solar power generation (red line = actual value, blue line = predicted value).

**Figure 20.**Peformance of the RF model for predicting next 15 days-ahead solar power generation (red line = actual value, blue line = predicted value).

Model | t = 1 Day | t = 3 Days | t = 5 Days | t = 15 Days |
---|---|---|---|---|

ARIMA | 0.42 | 0.8 | 1.36 | 2.24 |

SVR | 0.07 | 0.11 | 0.16 | 0.34 |

u-LSTM | 0.08 | 0.12 | 0.19 | 0.28 |

m-LSTM | 0.06 | 0.10 | 0.12 | 0.18 |

s-LSTM | 0.05 | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.16 |

GRU | 0.07 | 0.10 | 0.13 | 0.20 |

s-GRU | 0.06 | 0.10 | 0.12 | 0.17 |

ED-LSTM | 1.97 | 2.01 | 2.12 | 2.13 |

b-LSTM | 0.09 | 0.13 | 0.15 | 0.19 |

ARIMA-LSTM | 0.12 | 0.17 | 0.20 | 0.25 |

RF | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.10 | 0.13 |

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |

© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Sedai, A.; Dhakal, R.; Gautam, S.; Dhamala, A.; Bilbao, A.; Wang, Q.; Wigington, A.; Pol, S.
Performance Analysis of Statistical, Machine Learning and Deep Learning Models in Long-Term Forecasting of Solar Power Production. *Forecasting* **2023**, *5*, 256-284.
https://doi.org/10.3390/forecast5010014

**AMA Style**

Sedai A, Dhakal R, Gautam S, Dhamala A, Bilbao A, Wang Q, Wigington A, Pol S.
Performance Analysis of Statistical, Machine Learning and Deep Learning Models in Long-Term Forecasting of Solar Power Production. *Forecasting*. 2023; 5(1):256-284.
https://doi.org/10.3390/forecast5010014

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Sedai, Ashish, Rabin Dhakal, Shishir Gautam, Anibesh Dhamala, Argenis Bilbao, Qin Wang, Adam Wigington, and Suhas Pol.
2023. "Performance Analysis of Statistical, Machine Learning and Deep Learning Models in Long-Term Forecasting of Solar Power Production" *Forecasting* 5, no. 1: 256-284.
https://doi.org/10.3390/forecast5010014