MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408609386 · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3552733

Analyzing Partial Shading in PV Systems Using Wavelet Packet Transform and Empirical Mode Decomposition Techniques

2025· article· en· W4408609386 on OpenAlexaff
Kais Abdulmawjood, Walid G. Morsi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicPhotovoltaic System Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWavelet packet decompositionHilbert–Huang transformComputer scienceShadingWavelet transformDiscrete wavelet transformDecompositionWaveletSecond-generation wavelet transformMode (computer interface)Network packetArtificial intelligenceComputer visionComputer networkComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Partial shading in solar photovoltaic (PV) modules typically reduces the output current of the shaded PV module due to the reduction in the irradiance level. Although this phenomenon is temporary in nature, it is considered an intermittent fault, and it is essential for a protection system to differentiate it from other fault conditions to avoid unnecessary tripping. The main problem in identifying partial shading in a PV system is the difficulty of extracting its features under different shading conditions. To solve this difficulty, this article proposes a novel approach combining Wavelet Packet Transform (WPT) along with Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD) to extract the features of PV panel output voltage and string current signals during partial shading conditions. In the first stage, the WPT is used to split the PV voltage and string currents into specific sub-band frequencies, and then EMD is used to decompose the selected frequency bands into a number of intrinsic mode functions (IMFs) and a residual. The generated IMF components are then fed into the Random Forest (RF) algorithm designed for shading detection and classification. This proposed hybrid technique provides a high-resolution representation of the array voltage and string currents without loss in the time-frequency resolution, aiding in the detection of partial shading and differentiation of its strength. The results indicate that the proposed approach achieved a detection accuracy of 98.43% and a classification accuracy of 97.6%.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.419
Teacher spread0.377 · 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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicPhotovoltaic System Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207