MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414786576 · doi:10.3390/solar5040045

Computational Intelligence-Based Modeling of UAV-Integrated PV Systems

2025· article· en· W4414786576 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Hosein Saeedinia, Shamsodin Taheri, Ana-Maria Creţu

Bibliographic record

VenueSolar · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSolar Radiation and Photovoltaics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotovoltaic systemParticle swarm optimizationMaximum power point trackingProcess (computing)Point (geometry)Quadratic equationEnergy (signal processing)Power (physics)Extreme learning machine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The optimal utilization of UAV-integrated photovoltaic (PV) systems demands accurate modeling that accounts for dynamic flight conditions. This paper introduces a novel computational intelligence-based framework that models the behavior of a moving PV system mounted on a UAV. A unique mathematical approach is developed to translate UAV flight dynamics, specifically roll, pitch, and yaw, into the tilt and azimuth angles of the PV module. To adaptively estimate the diode ideality factor under varying conditions, the Grey Wolf Optimization (GWO) algorithm is employed, outperforming traditional methods like Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO). Using a one-year environmental dataset, multiple machine learning (ML) models are trained to predict maximum power point (MPP) parameters for a commercial PV panel. The best-performing model, Rational Quadratic Gaussian Process Regression (RQGPR), demonstrates high accuracy and low computational cost. Furthermore, the proposed ML-based model is experimentally integrated into an incremental conductance (IC) MPPT technique, forming a hybrid MPPT controller. Hardware and experimental validations confirm the model’s effectiveness in real-time MPP prediction and tracking, highlighting its potential for enhancing UAV endurance and energy efficiency.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSolarSame topicSolar Radiation and PhotovoltaicsFrench-language works237,207