MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402259599 · doi:10.1109/jphotov.2024.3450009

Using SegFormer for Effective Semantic Cell Segmentation for Fault Detection in Photovoltaic Arrays

2024· article· en· W4402259599 on OpenAlexaff
Zaid Mahboob, M. Adil Khan, Ehtisham Lodhi, Tahir Nawaz, Umar Shahbaz Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Photovoltaics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndustrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotovoltaic systemComputer scienceSegmentationFault detection and isolationArtificial intelligenceOptoelectronicsMaterials scienceElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Photovoltaic (PV) industries are susceptible to manufacturing defects within their solar cells. To accurately evaluate the efficacy of solar PV modules, the identification of manufacturing defects is imperative. Conventional industrial defect inspections predominantly rely on highly skilled inspectors conducting manual defect assessments, leading to sporadic and subjective identification outcomes. Deep-learning-based fault detection in PV or solar cells has emerged as a primary research area due to its superior efficiency and applicability. Hence, this study introduces a SegFormer-based fault detection framework to automate the visual defect inspection process in PV modules, complete with defect pseudocolorization. The proposed SegFormer-based framework effectively classifies defects into five categories: crack defects, front grid defects, interconnect defects, contact corrosion defects, and bright disconnect. Moreover, a comparative analysis is performed between the SegFormer model and the state-of-the-art fault detection algorithms, such as Deeplab v3, UNET, Deeplab v3+, PAN, PSPNet, and feature pyramid network (FPN). The experimental results reveal that the proposed SegFormer-based framework achieves highly encouraging performance, with a pixelwise accuracy of 96.24%, a weightedF1-score of 96.22%, an unweightedF1-score of 81.96%, and a mean intersection over union of 56.54%, outperforming other existing methods.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 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

Citations22
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal of PhotovoltaicsSame topicIndustrial Vision Systems and Defect DetectionFrench-language works237,207