MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Solar Cells, Lambert W and the LogWright Functions

2023· article· en· W4391095352 on OpenAlexaff
Prabhat Lankireddy, Sibibalan Jeevanandam, Aditya Choudhary, P. C. Deshmukh, K. Roberts, S. R. Valluri

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicExperimental and Theoretical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLambert W functionComputer sciencePhysicsMathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Algorithms that calculate the current-voltage (I-V) characteristics of a solar cell play an important role in processes that aim to improve the efficiency of a solar cell. I-V characteristics can be obtained from different models used to represent the solar cell, and the single diode model is a simple yet accurate model for common field implementations. However, the I-V characteristics are obtained by solving implicit equations, which involve repeated iterations and inherent errors associated with numerical methods used. Some methods use the Lambert W function to get an exact explicit formula, but often causes numerical overflow problems. The present work discusses an algorithm to calculate I-V characteristics using the LogWright function, a transformation of the Lambert W function, which addresses the problem of arithmetic overflow that occurs in the Lambert W implementation. An implementation of this algorithm is presented and compared against other algorithms in the literature. It is observed that in addition to addressing the numerical overflow problem, the algorithm based on the LogWright function offers speed benefits while retaining high precision.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicExperimental and Theoretical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207