MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410440429 · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-01816-3

Performance validation of global MPPT for efficient power extraction through PV system under complex partial shading effects

2025· article· en· W4410440429 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Abu Bakar Siddique, Dongya Zhao, Khmaies Ouahada, Ateeq Ur Rehman, Habib Hamam

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicPhotovoltaic System Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShadingExtraction (chemistry)Computer sciencePhotovoltaic systemMaximum power point trackingPower (physics)BiologyChemistryEcologyPhysicsChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The photovoltaic (PV) energy is essential for the future of sustainable energy developments. Conventional algorithms perform well in maximum power extraction under uniform irradiance conditions (UIC). However, they often struggle to maintain the global maximum power point (GMPP) under simple partial shading conditions (SPSCs), frequently getting stuck at local maximum power points (LMPPs) and resulting in power loss. This study developed an adapted perturb and observe based model predictive control (APO-MPC) maximum power point tracking (MPPT) approach in MATLAB/Simulink, comprising six series-connected PV modules, a boost converter, and load. The control strategy identifies GMPP and computes reference current to minimize the cost function of an optimization problem. It was compared with other MPPT algorithms regarding tracking accuracy, convergence speed, computational time, steady-state oscillations (SSOs), power efficiency under UIC, SPSCs, and complex partial shading conditions (CPSCs). The system was validated using real-time hardware implementation and seasonal field atmospheric data. The results indicated that the APO-MPC algorithm outperformed the others with no oscillations during GMPP tracking, average convergence time, and tracking efficiency of 0.17 s and 99.46%, respectively. The findings confirm its highly fast, accurate, and stable tracking of GMPP without getting trapped into LMPPs under CPSCs.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations17
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicPhotovoltaic System Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207