MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Investigation of Multiple Sudoku PV Array Reconfiguration Architectures under Partial Shading

2023· article· en· W4385695368 on OpenAlexaff
Priya Ranjan Satpathy, Belqasem Aljafari, Nnamdi Nwulu, Renu Sharma, Karthik Balasubhramanian

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicPhotovoltaic System Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShadingControl reconfigurationMATLABComputer scienceDispersion (optics)Photovoltaic systemPower (physics)Reduction (mathematics)MathematicsEngineeringElectrical engineeringEmbedded systemOpticsComputer graphics (images)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Array reconfigurations are widely preferred as a cost-effective solution for partial shading mitigation in solar PV arrays. Numerous architectures of array reconfigurations are proposed in the wide range of literature among which the Sudoku approach has gained a huge attraction due to the effective shade dispersion capability. However, recently other Sudoku-based reconfiguration strategies have been proposed and claimed to have higher shading dispersion and power enhancement than conventional Sudoku. So, in this paper, various reconfigurations i.e., Sudoku, improved Sudoku, hyper Sudoku, optimal Sudoku, modified Sudoku, triple X Sudoku, and advanced Sudoku have been critically analyzed under common multi-irradiance levels based partial shading scenarios to validate their performance in term of power losses reduction and shade dispersion in the PV arrays. The investigation has been done for a 9×9 PV array in the MATLAB environment under five partial shading scenarios using mathematical validation, power generation, losses, efficiency, and power curve analysis. It has been noticed that modified Sudoku has shown better performance and the shade dispersion of architectures depends on the nature and pattern of shading.

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)0.000
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 score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhotovoltaic System Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207