MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896439549 · doi:10.1109/cec.2018.8477797

Maximum Power Point Tracking in Photovoltaic Farms Using DE and PSO Algorithms: A Comparative Study

2018· article· en· W2896439549 on OpenAlexafffund
Faizan Khan, Ali Sunbul, Mohammad. Y. Ali, Haytham Abdei-Gawad, Shahryar Rahnamayan, Vijay K. Sood

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicPhotovoltaic System Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInitializationParticle swarm optimizationPopulationPhotovoltaic systemMathematical optimizationAlgorithmComputer scienceMaximum power point trackingDifferential evolutionMathematicsPower (physics)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.381
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhotovoltaic System Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207