Maximum Power Point Tracking in Photovoltaic Farms Using DE and PSO Algorithms: A Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Differential Evolution (DE) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithms are two commonly employed techniques in designing maximum power point tracking systems in photovoltaic (PV) farms. A mathematical formulation of the objective function is derived by implementing the maximum power theorem for load matching using the relationship between input and output impedances. This paper also proposes a novel Center-based Latin Hypercube (CLHS) initialization scheme for population-based algorithms; it is shown that for population initialization, the newly proposed technique of CLHS gives better results with a small population size. A comprehensive comparative study is conducted on DE and PSO algorithms in terms of control parameters, search components, and population initialization methods to determine the best algorithm with its corresponding optimal parameters settings and population initialization to solve a family of maximum power point tracking problems. The work shows that both algorithms are capable of tracking the maximum power point although the PSO is more effective over a small population size. In this study, in overall, 15,876 and 96,228 settings possibilities for DE and PSO respectively are investigated.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".