Comparative Analysis of Nature-Inspired Optimization Algorithms for Partial Shading Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Photovoltaic (PV) systems have gained significant attention as a sustainable energy source, but their efficiency is highly dependent on environmental conditions.Under Partial Shading Conditions (PSC), multiple power peaks occur, making conventional Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) techniques ineffective.To address this, several nature-inspired optimization algorithms have been developed, including Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), Adaptive PSO, Cuckoo Search (CS), Flower Pollination Algorithm (FPA), Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO), Horse Herd Optimization (HHO), and Hybrid PO-PSO.This study presents a comparative analysis of these algorithms in terms of tracking efficiency and robustness under dynamic shading patterns.PSO and its adaptive variant show fast convergence but may suffer from local optima.CS and FPA offer improved exploration capabilities, whereas GWO and HHO demonstrate better stability in complex landscapes.The Hybrid PO-PSO approach integrates the benefits of PO and PSO, achieving enhanced performance.Simulation results validate the effectiveness of each algorithm in extracting the maximum available power under different PSC scenarios.The analysis provides insights into the optimal selection of MPPT techniques for improving the reliability and efficiency of PV systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".