MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117299342 · doi:10.1109/pes.2011.6039690

Maximum power point tracking for Photovoltaic systems using fuzzy logic and artificial neural networks

2011· article· en· W2117299342 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicPhotovoltaic System Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaximum power point trackingPhotovoltaic systemArtificial neural networkControl theory (sociology)Fuzzy logicComputer scienceMaximum power principleNonlinear systemPower (physics)Control engineeringPoint (geometry)VoltageArtificial intelligenceEngineeringMathematicsControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The maximum power point tracking (MPPT) aims to increase the efficiency of Photovoltaic (PV) systems by operating their PV panels at the optimum power point. Many strategies have been introduced to achieve this objective. However, these strategies vary in their tracking performance, computational complexity and cost. The rapid changes in environmental conditions and the nonlinearity in the current-voltage (I-V) characteristics of PV panels make the tracking problem complex. This paper presents the design of two controllers; one based on fuzzy logic, and the other based on artificial neural networks. Fuzzy logic controllers are simple, easy to implement, and does not need knowledge of the mathematical model of the system. Neural networks are known to be universal approximators for non-linear dynamic system. Thus, they can be used to estimate the reference parameters of the maximum power point. The two controllers are simulated under variable environmental factors to study their tracking performance.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it