Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering

Integration of AI-Driven Machine Learning for Photovoltaic System Fault Detection and
Performance Optimization: A Comparative Analysis of Advanced Classifiers for
Renewable Energy Innovation
--Manuscript Draft--

Manuscript Number:

Full Title: Integration of AI-Driven Machine Learning for Photovoltaic System Fault Detection and
Performance Optimization: A Comparative Analysis of Advanced Classifiers for
Renewable Energy Innovation

Article Type: SCI / ENG - Research Article

Section/Category: ENG-Systems Engineering

Keywords: Photovoltaic (PV) systems, Fault detection, Machine Learning, Maintenance,

Performance degradation.

Corresponding Author: ATTIA Moussa

Echahid Cheikh Larbi Tebessi University: Universite Echahid Cheikh Larbi Tebessi
ALGERIA

Corresponding Author Secondary

Information:

Corresponding Author's Institution: Echahid Cheikh Larbi Tebessi University: Universite Echahid Cheikh Larbi Tebessi

Corresponding Author's Secondary

Institution:

First Author: Abdellahi Moulaye Rchid, Phd

First Author Secondary Information:

Order of Authors: Abdellahi Moulaye Rchid, Phd

ATTIA Moussa, Dr

Mohamed Elmamy MOHAMED MAHMOUD, Dr

Zoubir Aoulmi, Dr

Abdelkader Ould Mahmoud, Pr

Order of Authors Secondary Information:

Funding Information:

Abstract: This study examines five advanced machine learning models: Support Vector Machine
(SVM), Random Forest, XGBoost, Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), and Convolutional
Neural Networks (CNN) to detect and classify faults in photovoltaic (PV) systems. Key
factors such as inverter failures, module degradation, shading, and soiling were
accurately identified, with XGBoost achieving the highest accuracy of 88%, making it
appropriate for real-time predictive maintenance. Random Forest efficiently handled
multiple fault categories. While not ideal for immediate detection, ANN and CNN
exhibited considerable effectiveness in recognising long-term degradation, which
supports preventive maintenance strategies. This research examines significant
advancements in integrating renewable energy systems to optimise the maintenance
of photovoltaic (PV) systems, reducing downtime and enhancing operational efficiency.
This document offers critical and actionable insights for developing renewable energy
technologies to improve the reliability and sustainability of photovoltaic systems across
various sectors.

Suggested Reviewers: zied driss, Pr

ENIS: Ecole Nationale d'Ingenieurs de Sfax
[email protected]
Prof. Zied Driss is Full Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at
National School of Engineers of Sfax (ENIS). He received his Engineering Diploma in

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
 2001, his Master Degree in 2003, his PhD in 2008 and his HDR in 2013 in Mechanical
Engineering from ENIS at University of Sfax, Tunisia. He is interested on the
development of numerical and experimental techniques for solving problems in
mechanical engineering and energy applications.

nizar ben ezzine, Dr

National Engineering School of Monastir: Ecole Nationale d'Ingenieurs de Monastir
[email protected]
Dr. Nizar BEN EZZINE, Engineer of Energy Engineering, received his Ph.D. in Energy
Engineering and industrial process from National Engineering School of Monastir
(Tunisia) in 2008. He is an associate professor at Faculty of Sciences of Bizerte
(Tunisia). Dr. BenEzzine’s research areas include: Solar cooling, sorption refrigeration
systems, modeling and experimental analysis. He has authored one book and many
reviewed technical papers in professional journals and international conferences.

mohammed el hadi attia, Pr

Universite d'El Oued
[email protected]
Computational Fluid DynamicsNumerical SimulationFluid MechanicsCFD
SimulationComputational Fluid MechanicsNumerical
ModelingTurbulenceFLUENTModeling and SimulationTurbulence
ModelingEngineering ThermodynamicsEngineering, Applied and Computational
MathematicsExperimental Fluid MechanicsThermal EngineeringFluid
TurbulenceConvectionHydrodynamicsComputational SimulationLarge Eddy
SimulationDirect Numerical SimulationLES

hany F. Abd-Elhamid, Pr
Zagazig University
[email protected]
Prof. Dr. Hany Farhat Abd-Elhamid Professor of Water Resources Engineering and
interested in a number of topics including; water resources management, surface
water, groundwater, hydrological modeling, flood risk management, drought analysis,
climate change and sustainable development.

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Cover Letter

Cover Letter
Abdellahi Moulaye Rchid

Phd Student

Applied Research Unit for Renewable Energies in Water and Environment (URA3E), University of
Nouakchott, Nouakchott BP 880, Mauritania

Dear Editor,

I am writing to submit our manuscript, " Integration of AI-Driven Machine Learning for Photovoltaic System
Fault Detection and Performance Optimization: A Comparative Analysis of Advanced Classifiers for
Renewable Energy Innovation,” for consideration in your journal. This paper compares five machine
learning models—SVM, Random Forest, XGBoost, ANN, and CNN—for detecting and classifying faults in
photovoltaic (PV) systems. We provide insights into their respective effectiveness in identifying faults,
including inverter failures, module degradation, shading, and soiling, intending to optimize predictive and
preventive maintenance strategies.

The research stands out in its ability to apply advanced AI-based models to improve the reliability,
efficiency, and sustainability of PV systems, a key sector in renewable energy. Our findings reveal that
XGBoost demonstrates superior accuracy in fault detection, making it highly suitable for real-time
predictive maintenance.

We believe this work's contributions align well with your journal's aims, and we look forward to the
opportunity to contribute to the ongoing research in AI applications in renewable energy.

Thank you for considering our submission. We are open to any feedback and revisions to enhance the
quality of our manuscript.

Sincerely,

Abdellahi Moulaye Rchid (Applied Research Unit for Renewable Energies in Water and Environment (URA3E), University of Nouakchott,
Nouakchott BP 880, Mauritania); [email protected]; +22246377937

Dr Moussa Attia (Environment Laboratory, Institute of Mines, Echahid Cheikh Larbi Tebessi University, Tebessa 12002, Algeria );
[email protected]; +213671336015

Dr Mohamed Elmamy MOHAMED MAHMOUD (Applied Research Unit for Renewable Energies in Water and Environment
(URA3E), University of Nouakchott, Nouakchott BP 880, Mauritania ); [email protected]

Dr Zoubir Aoulmi (Environment Laboratory, Institute of Mines, Echahid Cheikh Larbi Tebessi University, Tebessa 12002, Algeria);
[email protected]

Pr Abdelkader Ould Mahmoud MAHMOUD (Applied Research Unit for Renewable Energies in Water and Environment (URA3E),
University of Nouakchott, Nouakchott BP 880, Mauritania ); [email protected]
Manuscript Click here to access/download;Manuscript;Integration.docx

Click here to view linked References

Integration of AI-Driven Machine Learning for Photovoltaic System Fault Detection and
1 Performance Optimization: A Comparative Analysis of Advanced Classifiers for Renewable
2 Energy Innovation
3
4
5
6 Abdellahi Moulaye Rchid1, Moussa Attia2, Mohamed Elmamy MOHAMED MAHMOUD1, Zoubir Aoulmi2,
7 Abdelkader Ould Mahmoud1,3
8
9
10 1 AppliedResearch Unit for Renewable Energies in Water and Environment (URA3E), University of Nouakchott, Nouakchott
11
BP 880, Mauritania
12
13 2 Environment Laboratory, Institute of Mines, Echahid Cheikh Larbi Tebessi University, Tebessa 12002, Algeria
14
3
15 Mauritanian Society of Renewable Energies and Green Hydrogen (2SMERHV), Mauritania
16
17
18 Abstract: This study examines five advanced machine learning models: Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random
19 Forest, XGBoost, Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), and Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) to detect and
20
classify faults in photovoltaic (PV) systems. Key factors such as inverter failures, module degradation, shading,
21
22 and soiling were accurately identified, with XGBoost achieving the highest accuracy of 88%, making it appropriate
23 for real-time predictive maintenance. Random Forest efficiently handled multiple fault categories. While not ideal
24 for immediate detection, ANN and CNN exhibited considerable effectiveness in recognising long-term
25 degradation, which supports preventive maintenance strategies. This research examines significant advancements
26 in integrating renewable energy systems to optimise the maintenance of photovoltaic (PV) systems, reducing
27 downtime and enhancing operational efficiency. This document offers critical and actionable insights for
28 developing renewable energy technologies to improve the reliability and sustainability of photovoltaic systems
29 across various sectors.
30
31 Keywords: Photovoltaic (PV) systems, Fault detection, Machine Learning, Maintenance, Performance
32 degradation.
33
34
35 1. Introduction
36
37 Photovoltaic (PV) systems have become a cornerstone of long-term energy production as the world shifts towards
38 renewable energy. Solar power, one of the fastest-growing kinds of renewable energy, is gaining popularity due
39 to its low environmental impact, cost, and scalability (Pei & Hao, 2019). Given this development, guaranteeing
40 the operational efficiency and dependability of PV systems is critical. Even slight defects in these systems can
41 result in large energy losses, increased operating costs, and a shorter installation lifespan (Vicente-Gabriel et al.,
42 2021). With the increasing reliance on solar power, the demand for intelligent, automated problem-detection
43 techniques is greater than ever (Voutsinas et al., 2023). PV farms are susceptible to a variety of defects, which can
44 have a significant influence on energy generation. These defects can range from minor difficulties, such as power
45 output decreases due to shade or panel soiling, to more major mechanical or electrical failures, such as inverter
46 malfunctions or panel degeneration (Jaskie et al., 2021). Each form of failure has a different impact on energy
47 efficiency, overall operational costs, and system reliability (Romero et al., 2023). Early diagnosis of these issues
48 is critical for minimising downtime, optimising maintenance schedules, and ensuring consistent energy output
49 (Dong et al., 2017). However, standard defect detection methods, such as physical inspections or sensor-based
50 monitoring, are time-consuming, expensive, and error-prone, particularly in large-scale solar farms (Bendary et
51 al., 2021). The various defect types and their differing features complicate fault identification in PV systems. Some
52 flaws, such as soiling, develop gradually and might be difficult to notice until they reach a critical level
53 (Dimitropoulos et al., 2021). Others, such as inverter failures, occur unexpectedly and can cause rapid and
54 significant disruptions in system functioning (Et-taleby et al., 2023). This diversity makes designing a one-size-
55 fits-all fault detection solution difficult, necessitating adopting advanced, flexible methods (Basnet et al., 2020).
56 A system that can detect gradual and sudden failures while giving real-time, actionable information to maintenance
57 staff is critical for maximizing PV system efficiency (Dai et al., 2021). Machine learning (ML) is a promising
58 solution to these problems, revolutionising issue identification and diagnosis across industries (Zhu et al., 2020).
59 In PV systems, ML models are beneficial because they can analyze enormous amounts of operational data,
60 discover subtle patterns, and detect anomalies that indicate possible defects (Phan & Tan, 2023). These models
61
62
63
64
65
 outperform traditional approaches in speed and accuracy and allow for predictive maintenance, which involves
1 anticipating errors before they cause substantial damage or downtime (Alrifaey et al., 2022). Predictive
2 maintenance, in turn, can eliminate the need for expensive human inspections while increasing the overall
3 efficiency of the PV farm (Rodrigues et al., 2020). The use of ML models for defect detection in PV systems is
4 diverse, with each model presenting unique advantages and limits. Random Forest and XGBoost, for example, are
5 powerful ensemble models that excel at accuracy and robustness, especially when dealing with complex, nonlinear
6 relationships in data (Ahmad & Tiwari, 2011). These models are frequently preferred because they reduce
7 overfitting and manage a wide range of fault types with great precision (Khoshnami & Sadeghkhani, 2018). Deep
8 learning models like Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) and Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) excel in
9 capturing detailed patterns in huge datasets. Still, they often demand significant computer resources and larger
10 datasets to operate well (Muttillo et al., 2020). Meanwhile, Support Vector Machines (SVM), a traditional
11 classification technique, performs well in binary fault classification but may suffer in more complex multiclass
12 settings, particularly when fault patterns are less distinct (Khalil et al., 2020). The selection of an ML model
13 directly impacts the effectiveness of problem detection and maintenance procedures used in PV farms (Gigoni et
14 al., 2018). Accurate fault categorization enables maintenance teams to distinguish between significant defects that
15 require immediate attention and those that can be resolved during normal maintenance (Dhimish et al., 2017). For
16 example, XGBoost and Random Forest, with their high accuracy and dependability, are suitable for real-time issue
17 identification and predictive maintenance (Fadhel et al., 2018). These models can immediately detect potential
18 flaws before they cause system breakdowns, allowing for early fixes and reducing operating disturbances (Lin et
19 al., 2012). ANN and CNN models, on the other hand, are more suited for capturing long-term degradation trends.
20 They enable preventative maintenance techniques by recognizing modest performance losses over time, allowing
21 operators to schedule repairs ahead of time and avoid future failure (Jusoh et al., 2017). While multiple research
22 studies have investigated the use of machine learning in fault detection for PV systems, there is still a need to
23 thoroughly compare various models in terms of fault detection accuracy and integration into maintenance
24 processes (Huang, 2017). Most existing research has concentrated on the models' detection skills, frequently
25 without considering how these models may be used realistically to improve preventative and predictive
26 maintenance techniques in real-world PV farms (Liao & Lu, 2021). (Yang et al., 2020), for example, used SVM
27 and Random Forest models on a dataset of PV system defects and discovered considerable increases in detection
28 accuracy above standard techniques (Starzyński et al., 2022). Similarly, (Trizoglou et al., 2021) used XGBoost for
29 fault identification, emphasizing its capacity to handle complicated datasets with minimal overfitting (Grimaccia
30 et al., 2014). However, these studies frequently fail to thoroughly evaluate how fault categorization might guide
31 maintenance decisions, which is critical for improving system performance and lowering maintenance costs (Choi
32 & Suh, 2023). This study aims to fill this gap by comparing the defect detection accuracy of five machine learning
33 models—Random Forest, SVM, XGBoost, ANN, and CNN—and their capacity to educate and improve PV farm
34 maintenance practices (Hong et al., 2011). This study will analyze operational data from PV systems to discover
35 which models provide the best accuracy and reliability in fault classification, as well as how the output of these
36 models may be integrated into predictive and preventative maintenance workflows (Lambert et al., 2023). As a
37 result, the study offers useful insights for PV farm operators aiming to improve system efficiency, extend the
38 lifespan of their installations, and minimize maintenance costs through intelligent, data-driven decision-making
39 (Zhou et al., 2018). Furthermore, this study emphasizes the need to customize machine learning models to meet
40 unique operational demands in PV farms (Souza et al., 2014). Incorporating machine learning models into real-
41 time monitoring systems can alter traditional maintenance procedures, shifting from reactive to proactive
42 approaches (Moloi et al., 2020). Machine learning models can assist operators in avoiding costly downtime,
43 scheduling maintenance more efficiently, and ensuring that PV systems run at top efficiency by continuously
44 monitoring their health and properly categorizing errors (Yang et al., 2020). This study's findings will benefit PV
45 operators looking to incorporate advanced data analytics into their maintenance processes, resulting in more
46 sustainable and reliable solar energy output (Jiang et al., 2011). The primary goal of this study is to test the
47 effectiveness of five machine-learning models in detecting problems in photovoltaic farms and to determine how
48
these models might be utilized to improve maintenance procedures (Xia et al., 2020). This study intends to bridge
49
the gap between machine learning theory and practical implementations in the renewable energy sector by focusing
50
on real-time problem detection and long-term preventative maintenance. The findings of this study will give a
51
roadmap for incorporating machine learning models into the operational management of PV systems, ensuring that
52
renewable energy infrastructure stays efficient, resilient, and cost-effective. In summary, this paper provides a
53
complete evaluation of machine learning models for problem detection in PV systems and actionable suggestions
54
for improving maintenance procedures. By applying machine learning, PV operators may improve system
55
56 dependability, save maintenance costs, and contribute to the global shift towards sustainable energy production.
57 Incorporating machine learning into PV system management represents a significant step forward in renewable
58 energy, promising a future in which faults are detected and predicted, allowing for smarter, more efficient
59 maintenance and ensuring the long-term viability of PV installations.
60
61
62
63
64
65
 2. Literature Review
1
2 In recent years, machine learning (ML) has emerged as a practical approach for improving defect detection in
3 photovoltaic (PV) systems. Various ML models have shown helpful in identifying potential issues by analyzing
4 vast volumes of operational data in real-time, minimizing downtime, and aiding preventative maintenance plans
5 (Pinto et al., 2022). Support Vector Machines (SVM), Random Forest, XGBoost, Artificial Neural Networks
6 (ANN), and Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) are some of the most well-studied models. SVM has already
7 demonstrated good performance in binary classification tasks. For example, (Hafdaoui et al., 2022) Proved that
8 SVM detected inverter failures in PV systems with an accuracy of 85%. However, SVM performance worsens
9 when applied to increasingly complicated, multiclass classification tasks. (Aziz et al., 2020) Discovered that the
10 accuracy of SVM was reduced to 82% while identifying voltage spikes in PV systems. This shortcoming highlights
11 SVM's difficulty in responding to complex fault detection settings involving various problem types. On the other
12 hand, Random Forest has emerged as one of the more robust models for defect detection in PV systems, especially
13 in areas with high noise levels. (Rodriguez-Galiano et al., 2012) It discovered that Random Forest obtained 87%
14 accuracy in detecting shading and soiling defects in PV panels, greatly surpassing a normal decision tree, which
15 had an accuracy of only 80%. Random Forest's strength is its ensemble learning method, which integrates
16 predictions from numerous decision trees, enhancing overall classification accuracy and lowering the danger of
17 overfitting. This makes it an appropriate alternative for detecting defects in noisy, real-world PV operating data.
18 XGBoost, a gradient-boosting strategy, has proven to be one of the most effective models for dealing with huge,
19 skewed datasets. (Shao et al., 2024) Employed XGBoost to a dataset of PV system failures and achieved an 88%
20 accuracy, surpassing Random Forest (85%) and SVM (80%) in tasks such as detecting soiling and inverter
21 difficulties. XGBoost's iterative learning approach, which focuses on rectifying previous learners' mistakes, allows
22 it to handle complicated patterns in data while avoiding overfitting, even when fault types are not evenly
23 distributed. Deep learning methods, such as Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), have also demonstrated potential
24 for detecting long-term or subtle defects in PV systems. (H et al., 2022) Used ANN to identify gradual degradation
25 in PV panels and reached an 84% accuracy. ANN's capacity to identify non-linear relationships in data makes it
26 very valuable for spotting defects that grow gradually over time. However, the need for huge datasets and
27
significant processing resources makes applying real-time PV monitoring applications more difficult. Similarly,
28
Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), created for image identification, have been applied to fault detection in
29
PV systems by analyzing time-series operating data. (Sridharan & Sugumaran, 2021) CNN detected temporal and
30
spatial fault patterns, such as gradual panel degradation, with 83% accuracy (Jiao et al., 2020). CNNs effectively
31
identify more complicated and long-term errors. Still, they demand much computational power, making them
32
unsuitable for smaller PV systems or real-time fault detection applications without advanced hardware support.
33
Comparative studies have examined different machine learning models' relative strengths and
34
35 shortcomings regarding fault identification. (Mahesh et al., 2022) Examined the performance of SVM, Random
36 Forest, and XGBoost, indicating that XGBoost consistently outperformed the others regarding accuracy, precision,
37 and recall (Kong, 2023). Similarly, (Islam et al., 2024) Investigated the use of ANN and CNN for detecting more
38 complex fault patterns and concluded that, while both models provide strong detection capabilities, they have
39 higher computational demands than traditional machine learning models such as Random Forest and SVM (Ke et
40 al., 2022). These studies demonstrate the trade-offs between traditional machine learning models like SVM and
41 Random Forest and more advanced models like XGBoost, ANN, and CNN. Traditional models are
42 computationally efficient and can handle more straightforward defect detection tasks, whereas advanced models
43 provide more accuracy and precision but require more computational resources and datasets. This trade-off is
44 fundamental in real-world PV systems, where model selection is influenced not only by desired accuracy but also
45 by the system's processing capacity and the nature of the operational data. By synthesizing the data from the current
46 literature, it is evident that each model has advantages and disadvantages based on the defect detection situation.
47 SVM may serve for binary classification jobs with simple data. However, more complex, multiclass fault detection
48 scenarios may benefit from ensemble models like XGBoost or deep learning architectures like ANN and CNN.
49 The comparative studies provide a clear framework for picking the best model based on the dataset size, fault
50 pattern complexity, and available computational resources.
51
52 3. Methodology
53 3.1. Data Collection
54
55 The dataset for this study was acquired from operational photovoltaic (PV) systems, and it included metrics such
56 as current (I), voltage (V), and power output (P), as well as environmental conditions such as temperature and
57 irradiance. The following equation defines the relationship between these parameters:
58
59
60 P V I (1)
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4 Where P is the power output (Watts), V is the voltage (Volts), and I is the current (Amps).
5
6
With fault and non-fault states, this dataset offers a variety of operational behaviours.
7
8
9 A 250-kW photovoltaic (PV) power station was utilized to generate datasets for training and testing in fault
10 analysis of the PV system. Three distinct fault types were identified: string, string-to-ground, and string-to-string
11 (Chine et al., 2016; Sun et al., 2017). The programming was executed in Python to create models and analyze the
12 data. The datasets comprised 600 samples for training and 50 for testing, each containing 30 features. Performance
13 evaluation involved several machine learning models, including XGBoost, Random Forest, and SVM, which
14 exhibited high fault detection and prediction accuracy. (Nguyen et al., 2021). No simulations were conducted; the
15 emphasis was on processing real-world data using contemporary techniques to improve detection performance.
16 (Duan & Ma, 2024; Jin, 2023; Lu et al., 2021).
17
18
19 3.2. Data Preprocessing
20
21 The preprocessing steps applied to the raw dataset include:
22
23  Handling Missing Values: Missing values were replaced with the median of the corresponding column
24 to maintain the data's distribution.
25
26
27 ImputationValue  median( X )Imputation Value  median( X ) ImputationValue  median( X ) (2)
28
29 Missing values were replaced with each column's median, as shown in Table 1 below.
30
31 Table 1: Data Preprocessing Summary
32
33
34 Feature Missing Values (Count) Imputation Method Scaling Method
35 Current (I) 5 Median StandardScaler
36 Voltage (V) 8 Median StandardScaler
37
Power Output (P) 10 Median StandardScaler
38
39 Temperature 0 N/A StandardScaler
40 Irradiance 0 N/A StandardScaler
41
42
43  Normalization: Following imputation, features were normalized with StandardScaler to ensure all
44 features were on the same scale as the machine learning models. The normalized values place the data
45 within the range:
46
47 X 
48 X  (3)
49 
50
51 Where X′ is the normalized value, X is the original value, μ\muμ is the mean, and σ\sigmaσ is the standard
52 deviation.
53
54 3.3. Feature Selection
55
56
Pearson correlation analysis was performed to find the most important features for defect detection. The correlation
57
coefficient ρ assesses the linear relationship between characteristics and the target variable (fault status).
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 Cov( X , Y )
1 (X ,Y )  (4)
 XY
2
3
4 Where Cov(X, Y) is the covariance between variables X and Y,  X and  Y Are the standard deviations of X and Y?
5
6
7 Table 2: Feature Correlation Analysis
8
9 Feature Correlation with Target (Fault Status)
10
Current (I) 0.76
11
12 Voltage (V) 0.72
13 Power Output (P) 0.80
14 Temperature 0.30
15
Irradiance 0.29
16
17
18 Following the correlation study, the characteristics of current (I), voltage (V), and power output (P) were chosen
19 for model training.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Figure 1: Correlation Matrix
56
57
58 Figure 1 displays the correlation matrix for the essential features. This matrix visually depicts the correlations
59 between features, with higher correlation values indicating a more linear relationship.
60
61
62
63
64
65
 3.4. Data Visualization
1
2 Two visualizations were generated to help better understand the distribution of the attributes and their
3 relationships:
4
5 1. Histogram of Features: This shows the distribution of each feature.
6 2. Scatter Matrix (Pairplot): This visualization assists in analyzing interactions between numerous
7 features and identifying probable clusters or patterns.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39 Figure 2: Histogram of Key Features
40
41 Figure 2 illustrates histograms of critical features such as current, voltage, and power output. This aids in
42 visualizing the data distribution before normalization and the existence of outliers.
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 Figure 3: Scatter Matrix (Pairplot) of Key Features
20
21
22
23 3.5. Model Selection
24
25 Five models were selected based on their effectiveness for fault detection:
26
27
28  Support Vector Machine (SVM): In binary classification tasks, the SVM algorithm aims to identify the
29 optimal hyperplane that effectively separates the different classes.
30
31 w xb  0
T (5)
32
33
 Random Forest (RF): A method that integrates various decision trees to enhance the reliability of fault
34
detection.
35
36
37 yˆ  mode{h1 ( x), h2 ( x), , hn ( x)} (6)
38
39
40  XGBoost: A gradient boosting model, XGBoost, focuses on optimizing the subsequent objective
41 function:
42
43   l ( yˆi , yi )   ( fk ) (7)
44 i k
45
46  Artificial Neural Network (ANN): Can detect minor defects using non-linear feature interactions.
47
 Convolutional Neural Network (CNN): Used to identify temporal and structural fault patterns in time
48
series data.
49
50
51 The flowchart below (Figure 4) depicts the complete technique, from data collection via model selection, training,
52 and error detection:
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 Figure 4: Flowchart for the Fault Detection Process
1
2 This study uses machine learning models, specifically SVM, Random Forest, XGBoost, ANN, and CNN. Table 3
3 below summarizes the reasons for their selection.
4
5 Table 3: Summary of Model Selection
6
7
8 Model Type Strengths Best for
9 SVM Binary Classifier Effective for smaller datasets Binary Faults
10 Random Forest Ensemble (Tree-based) Handles noisy data and performs well in multiclass tasks Multiclass Faults
11
XGBoost Boosting (Ensemble) Handles large, imbalanced datasets Complex Faults
12
13 ANN Deep Learning Captures non-linear patterns Long-Term Detection
14 CNN Deep Learning Effective for time-series data Temporal Faults
15
16
The preprocessed data was utilized for training each model, employing an 80-20 division between the training and
17
testing sets. The essential parameters for each model underwent meticulous fine-tuning via cross-validation and
18
grid search methodologies.
19
20
21
22
23 3.6. Model Training
24
25 All models received hyperparameter tuning to achieve optimal performance. The training configuration for every
26 model is detailed in Table 4.
27
28
Table 4: Training Configuration of Models
29
30
31 Model Hyperparameters Optimized Key Parameters
32 SVM Kernel (RBF), Regularization (C) C = 1.0, Kernel = 'rbf'
33
Random Forest Number of Trees (n_estimators) n_estimators = 100, max_depth = 10
34
35 XGBoost Learning Rate, Max Depth Learning Rate = 0.1, max_depth = 6
36 ANN Number of Layers, Neurons per Layer 3 Layers, 128 Neurons in First Layer, Dropout = 0.3
37 CNN Conv Layers, Kernel Size 2 Conv Layers, Kernel Size = 3
38
39
40 Based on the fault detection results, different maintenance strategies were proposed:
41
42  Predictive Maintenance: This is for real-time fault detection (best for XGBoost and Random Forest).
43  Preventive Maintenance: For gradual or long-term degradation (most suitable for ANN and CNN).
44
45
This methodology created a robust framework for identifying faults in photovoltaic (PV) systems by applying
46
machine learning techniques. Essential data preprocessing steps, such as normalization and feature selection
47
through Pearson correlation, were implemented to achieve optimal model performance. Various models were
48
selected, optimized, and assessed for validation, including SVM, Random Forest, XGBoost, ANN, and CNN.
49
Visual tools such as histograms and correlation matrices offered essential insights into the data structure. This
50
robust groundwork equips the models for efficient fault detection and subsequent examination of predictive and
51
preventive maintenance approaches.
52
53
54 4. Results and Discussion
55
56 This section examines the five machine learning models employed by SVM, Random Forest, XGBoost, ANN, and
57 CNN for fault detection in photovoltaic (PV) systems. The findings are analyzed in earlier research, emphasizing
58 the effectiveness of the models and their consequences for classification and maintenance approaches. We
59 incorporate detailed visual representations, including output-input function plots, pre- and post-prediction,
60 comparisons of sample indices, and performance metrics tailored to each model.
61
62
63
64
65
 4.1. Comparison with Previous Studies
1
2 Prior investigations have shown different levels of effectiveness in identifying faults in PV systems by applying
3 machine learning models. (Verma et al., 2024) Attained an accuracy of 85% with SVM in identifying inverter
4 faults. In contrast, (Mellit & Kalogirou, 2021) Documented an accuracy of 87% utilising Random Forest to detect
5 shading and soiling faults. (Abdelmoula et al., 2024) Demonstrated that XGBoost is remarkably effective, attaining
6 an accuracy of 88% in identifying inverter and soiling problems.
7
8 The results of our investigation are consistent with these observations, as XGBoost demonstrated the highest
9 accuracy (88%) in identifying various types of faults. The reliability of these findings across various studies
10 highlights the strength of ensemble models such as XGBoost and Random Forest in managing intricate,
11 imbalanced datasets.
12
13
14 Table 5: Performance Comparison with Previous Studies
15
16 Study Model Accuracy (%) Fault Type Detected
17 Verma et al., 2024 SVM 85 Inverter Faults
18
Mellit & Kalogirou, 2021 Random Forest 87 Shading, Soiling
19
20 Abdelmoula et al., 2024 XGBoost 88 Inverter, Soiling
21 This Study XGBoost 88 Multiple Faults
22 This Study Random Forest 87 Multiple Faults
23
24
25 Table 5 demonstrates that our results are consistent with earlier research, underscoring the efficacy of ensemble
26 models such as XGBoost and Random Forest for fault detection in PV systems.
27
28 4.2. Model Performance Comparison
29
30 The models were evaluated using accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-Score to provide an in-depth view of their
31 capacity to detect problems. XGBoost and Random Forest emerged as the top performers, demonstrating their
32 capacity to handle complicated datasets.
33
34
35 Table 6: Model Performance Metrics
36
37 Model Accuracy (%) Precision (%) Recall (%) F1-Score (%)
38 SVM 82 80 79 79.5
39
40 Random Forest 87 85 84 84.5
41 XGBoost 88 87 88 87.5
42 ANN 84 83 84 83.5
43 CNN 83 82 83 82.5
44
45
46 XGBoost achieved the best accuracy (88%), making it perfect for predictive maintenance schemes that need early
47 issue detection.
48
49 Random Forest also performed successfully, with an 87% accuracy rate, indicating its capacity to handle noisy
50 data and multiclass failure conditions.
51
52 SVM fared somewhat worse than ensemble models, demonstrating limits in handling more complex, multiclass
53 datasets, as evidenced by its lower recall value of 79%.
54
55
56 ANN and CNN models performed similarly, excelling at detecting long-term fault patterns. This makes them
57 excellent for preventative maintenance when steady degradation is identified over time.
58
59 4.3. Visualization of Model Performance
60
61
62
63
64
65
 Figure 5 presents each model's accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-Score, visually comparing their performance
1 metrics.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 Figure 5: Model Performance Comparison
25
26
Figure 5 illustrates that XGBoost performs better than the other models across all evaluated metrics. This is
27
consistent with earlier studies that emphasise the advantages of ensemble methods when dealing with complex,
28
imbalanced datasets.
29
30
31 Random Forest demonstrates robust performance, particularly in precision and recall, positioning it as a suitable
32 option for real-time fault detection despite being slightly outperformed by XGBoost.
33
34 4.4. Output-Input Function Comparison Before and After Prediction
35
36 The output-input function is now visualized for each model before and after the prediction phase. The plots
37 illustrate the effectiveness of the models in representing the underlying fault patterns present in the data.
38
39
Figure 6 illustrates the comparison between output and input for XGBoost, highlighting the proximity of actual
40
values to predicted values.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Figure 6: Output-Input Comparison (XGboost)
21
22
23 Figure 6 demonstrates that XGBoost effectively monitors the actual fault states, establishing it as the most
24 dependable model for fault detection. The model demonstrates a strong correlation between its fault prediction
25 capabilities and the values observed across multiple sample indices.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40 Figure 7: Output-Input Comparison for All Models
41
42 Figure 7 extends this analysis to encompass all models, comparing their predicted and actual values across various
43 input samples.
44
45 Figure 7 illustrates that XGBoost and Random Forest closely correlate with the fault data. In contrast, models
46 such as SVM and CNN encounter challenges in accurately tracking the specific fault states throughout the sample
47 indices. Sample Index Comparison
48
49
50 Figure 8 illustrates the comparison between the actual fault states and the predicted fault states generated by the
51 Random Forest model, facilitating the assessment of the model's effectiveness across diverse input samples.
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 Figure 8: Sample Index Comparison (Random Forest)
20
21 The sample index comparison provides a more detailed view of the model's ability to generalize fault detection
22 across various input conditions. It shows how closely Random Forest tracks the actual fault data across different
23 samples, demonstrating its robustness in detecting faults within noisy and complex environments (Figure 8).
24
25 4.5. Confusion Matrix Analysis
26
27
28 Figure 9 illustrates the confusion matrices for XGBoost and Random Forest, facilitating a comprehensive analysis
29 of the models' classification performance. The matrices delineate the true positives (TP), true negatives (TN), false
30 positives (FP), and false negatives (FN), which are critical for evaluating each model's precision and recall.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53 Figure 9: Confusion Matrix for Random Forest
54
55 Figure 10 illustrates that XGBoost exhibits the lowest false negative rate, indicating its effectiveness in capturing
56 the majority of fault instances, a critical factor for real-time fault detection. The Random Forest algorithm
57 demonstrates effective performance but exhibits a marginally elevated rate of false positives. This suggests that,
58 although it successfully identifies most faults, it may also misclassify certain non-fault states as faults.
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Figure 10: Confusion Matrix for XGBoost
20
21
22 4.6. Discussion and Implications
23
24 The data in Tables 5 and 6 and the corresponding visual representations indicate the distinct advantages of
25 ensemble models such as XGBoost and Random Forest in fault detection within photovoltaic systems. The
26 performance of these models, especially XGBoost, is superior to that of other machine learning techniques such
27 as SVM, ANN, and CNN, as evidenced by all evaluation metrics: accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score.
28
29 XGBoost demonstrates superior performance, achieving an accuracy rate of 88%, which positions it as an optimal
30 choice for predictive maintenance applications. The capability to accurately identify faults in real time enables
31 system operators to take action before these faults escalate into significant failures.
32
33
34 Random Forest performs well, especially in noisy data or multiclass fault detection situations. The system's
35 accuracy rate is 87%, making it highly effective for real-time fault detection and early intervention strategies.
36
37 Support Vector Machines (SVM) demonstrate efficacy in smaller, binary classification tasks; however, they
38 exhibit limitations in multiclass scenarios, as indicated by the reduced recall and F1-Score metrics.
39
40 Although ANN and CNN models do not surpass the performance of ensemble models, they demonstrate
41 proficiency in identifying long-term degradation and intricate fault patterns, thereby providing significant value
42 for preventive maintenance. These models demonstrate significant effectiveness in scenarios where faults progress
43 incrementally, facilitating the implementation of planned interventions.
44
45
 Implications for Maintenance Strategies
46
47
48 Based on the model performance, we propose two primary maintenance strategies:
49
50 1. Predictive Maintenance: XGBoost and Random Forest are practical tools for the real-time detection of
51 faults, enabling operators to implement immediate corrective measures to prevent system downtime.
52 Their high precision and recall guarantee the detection of most faults while minimising the occurrence of
53 false alarms that could burden the system.
54 2. Preventive Maintenance: Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) and Convolutional Neural Networks
55 (CNN) models demonstrate superior capabilities in identifying long-term system degradation patterns.
56 These models notify operators regarding gradual performance declines, allowing for maintenance
57 scheduling at optimal intervals, thereby minimising unexpected system failures.
58
59 This study evaluates five machine learning models: SVM, Random Forest, XGBoost, ANN, and CNN, specifically
60 for fault detection in photovoltaic systems. The analysis demonstrates that XGBoost is the most efficient model,
61
62
63
64
65
 attaining superior accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score, rendering it suitable for predictive maintenance
1 applications. The Random Forest algorithm demonstrated strong performance, especially in noisy environments,
2 making it a reliable choice for real-time fault detection. Conversely, ANN and CNN models demonstrate lower
3 accuracy in real-time fault detection; however, they are particularly effective for preventive maintenance owing to
4 their capability to identify long-term degradation patterns. This study’s findings align with previous research while
5 providing further insights into applying advanced machine-learning techniques for fault detection in renewable
6 energy systems. The results underscore the importance of selecting the appropriate model based on the specific
7 maintenance strategy—predictive or preventive—being implemented in PV systems.
8
9 5. Conclusion
10
11 This study examines fault detection within photovoltaic (PV) systems. Five advanced machine learning models
12 were employed: SVM, Random Forest, XGBoost, ANN, and CNN. These models were utilised to classify and
13
detect faults, including inverter failures, module degradation, shading, and soiling, while analysing their effects on
14
system performance and operational stability. The study focused on detecting immediate faults that may result in
15
sudden system failures and gradual degradation patterns that indicate a decline in long-term performance.
16
17
18 Following a thorough assessment, XGBoost was identified as the most efficient model, attaining an accuracy rate
19 of 88% in classifying various fault types. The system's high precision allows for real-time predictive maintenance,
20 which aids in identifying and correcting faults before they develop into major failures. Random Forest handled
21 complex and noisy datasets, effectively identifying fault types across operational conditions. Although ANN and
22 CNN models demonstrated reduced effectiveness in immediate fault detection, they excelled in identifying long-
23 term degradation. This capability is essential for preventive maintenance strategies that minimise downtime
24 through scheduled repairs.
25
26 The study outlines a systematic methodology for fault classification, demonstrating the capability of machine
27 learning models to identify unique patterns associated with each fault type. Abrupt decreases in system output
28 correlated with inverter malfunctions, whereas soiling problems presented as gradual reductions in efficiency. The
29 precise classification allowed the models to deliver actionable insights to maintenance teams, prioritizing
30 interventions according to the severity and impact of each fault type.
31
32 The study presents customized maintenance strategies derived from fault classification. Real-time interventions
33 utilising XGBoost and Random Forest are advised for addressing immediate faults such as inverter failures. These
34 models are designed to trigger automated alerts to operators, facilitating prompt action to mitigate expensive
35
system downtime. To address long-term degradation factors, including module wear and soiling, artificial neural
36
networks (ANN) and convolutional neural networks (CNN) are proposed for monitoring performance trends and
37
planning preventive maintenance activities.
38
39
40 Future research may build upon this study by incorporating these models into fully automated predictive
41 maintenance systems. This integration should include cloud-based monitoring, IoT devices, and real-time analytics
42 to improve the speed and accuracy of fault detection and classification. Furthermore, enhancing the models'
43 capacity to learn from new fault patterns via reinforcement learning can improve adaptability in addressing
44 emerging challenges in photovoltaic system management. This promising avenue of research holds the potential
45 to revolutionize the field of renewable energy technologies.
46
47 This study illustrates the application of machine learning techniques for fault classification and detection,
48 achieving high accuracy. It also provides practical solutions to improve the reliability and efficiency of
49 photovoltaic systems for future implementations. The findings indicate the capability of intelligent, data-driven
50 methodologies to modify traditional maintenance strategies, leading to fully automated fault management that
51 decreases operational costs and improves system availability. These practical solutions offer reassurance about
52 photovoltaic systems' future reliability and efficiency.
53
54 This study establishes a foundation for advancing intelligent, self-managing photovoltaic systems by categorising
55 various fault types and proposing targeted maintenance strategies. The systems are engineered to identify and
56 mitigate faults with high accuracy, adapting to the dynamic challenges of the renewable energy sector. This
57 adaptability instils confidence in the future of renewable energy technologies, ensuring sustainable and long-term
58
operational performance. This approach creates a structured framework for the future of automated energy
59
systems, progressing through the incorporation of machine learning and emerging technologies to address the
60
increasing demands for renewable energy solutions.
61
62
63
64
65
 REFERENCES
1
Abdelmoula, I. A., Oufettoul, H., Lamrini, N., Motahhir, S., Mehdary, A., & El Aroussi, M. (2024). Federated
2
learning for solar energy applications: A case study on real-time fault detection. Solar Energy, 282,
3
112942.
4
5 Ahmad, M. J., & Tiwari, G. N. (2011). Solar Radiation Models-a Review. International Journal of Energy
6 Research, 35(4), 271-290. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.1690
7 Alrifaey, M., Lim, W. H., Ang, C. K., Natarajan, E., Solihin, M. I., Juhari, M. R. M., & Tiang, S. S. (2022). Hybrid
8 Deep Learning Model for Fault Detection and Classification of Grid-Connected Photovoltaic System.
9 Ieee Access, 10, 13852-13869. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2022.3140287
10 Aziz, F., Ul-Haq, A., Ahmad, S., Mahmoud, Y., Jalal, M., & Ali, U. (2020). A Novel Convolutional Neural
11 Network-Based Approach for Fault Classification in Photovoltaic Arrays. Ieee Access, 8, 41889-41904.
12 https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.2977116
13 Basnet, B., Chun, H., & Bang, J. (2020). An Intelligent Fault Detection Model for Fault Detection in Photovoltaic
14 Systems. Journal of Sensors, 2020, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6960328
15 Bendary, A. F., Abdelaziz, A. Y., Ismail, M., Mahmoud, K., Lehtonen, M., & Darwish, M. M. F. (2021). Proposed
16 ANFIS-Based Approach for Fault Tracking, Detection, Clearing, and Rearrangement for Photovoltaic
17 Systems. Sensors, 21(7), 2269. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21072269
18 Chine, W., Mellit, A., Lughi, V., Malek, A., Sulligoi, G., & Pavan, A. (2016). A Novel Fault Diagnosis Technique
19 for Photovoltaic Systems Based on Artificial Neural Networks. Renewable Energy, 90, 501-512.
20 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.01.036
21 Choi, K., & Suh, J. (2023). Fault Detection and Power Loss Assessment for Rooftop Photovoltaics Installed in a
22 University Campus by Use of UAV-Based Infrared Thermography. Energies, 16(11), 4513.
23 https://doi.org/10.3390/en16114513
24 Dai, S., Wang, D., Li, W., Zhou, Q., Tian, G., & Dong, H. (2021). Fault Diagnosis of Data-Driven Photovoltaic
25 Power Generation System Based on Deep Reinforcement Learning. Mathematical Problems in
26 Engineering, 2021, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/2506286
27 Dhimish, M., Holmes, V., Mehrdadi, B., Dales, M., & Mather, P. (2017). Photovoltaic Fault Detection Algorithm
28 Based on Theoretical Curves Modelling and Fuzzy Classification System. Energy, 140, 276-290.
29 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.08.102
30 Dimitropoulos, N., Sofias, N., Kapsalis, P., Mylona, Z., Marinakis, V., Primo, N., & Doukas, H. (2021).
31 Forecasting of Short-Term PV Production in Energy Communities Through Machine Learning and Deep
32 Learning Algorithms. https://doi.org/10.1109/iisa52424.2021.9555544
33 Dong, J., Cai, Z., Lv, M., Ma, Y., & Guan, N. (2017). Photovoltaic Array Fault Detection by Automatic
34 Reconfiguration. Energies, 10(5), 699. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10050699
35 Duan, R., & Ma, Z. (2024). A method for detecting photovoltaic panel faults using a drone equipped with a
36 multispectral camera. ISPRS Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., X-1-2024, 59-65.
37 https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-annals-X-1-2024-59-2024
38 Et-taleby, A., Chaibi, Y., Benslimane, M., & Boussetta, M. (2023). Applications of Machine Learning Algorithms
39 for Photovoltaic Fault Detection: A Review. Statistics Optimization & Information Computing, 11(1),
40 168-177. https://doi.org/10.19139/soic-2310-5070-1537
41 Fadhel, S., Migan, A., Delpha, C., Bahri, I., Trabelsi, M., & Faouzi-Mimouni, M. (2018). Data-Driven Approach
42 for Isolated PV Shading Fault Diagnosis Based on Experimental I-v Curves Analysis.
43 https://doi.org/10.1109/icit.2018.8352302
44 Gigoni, L., Betti, A., Crisostomi, E., Franco, A., Tucci, M., Bizzarri, F., & Mucci, D. (2018). Day-Ahead Hourly
45 Forecasting of Power Generation From Photovoltaic Plants. Ieee Transactions on Sustainable Energy,
46 9(2), 831-842. https://doi.org/10.1109/tste.2017.2762435
47 H, G., Guo, Y., Luo, T., & Zhang, C. (2022). A Fault Identification Method of Mechanical Element Action Unit
48 Based on CWT-2DCNN. Shock and Vibration, 2022, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9330859
49 Hafdaoui, H., Boudjelthia, E. A. K., Bouchakour, S., & Belhaouas, N. (2022). Using Machine Learning for
50 Analysis a Database Outdoor Monitoring of Photovoltaic System. International Journal of Integrated
51 Engineering, 14(6). https://doi.org/10.30880/ijie.2022.14.06.024
52 Hong, T., Li, H., & Zhong, F. (2011). Adaptive Two-Class C-Support Vector Machine Algorithm for Turbopump
53 Fault Detection. https://doi.org/10.1109/robio.2011.6181381
54 Huang, C.-C. (2017). Intelligent maintenance scheduling system for maximum performance of solar-energy-
55 generating system. Sensors and Materials, 29(11), 1579-1588.
56 Islam, M. A., Hasan Majumder, M. Z., Hussein, M. A., Hossain, K. M., & Miah, M. S. (2024). A review of machine
57 learning and deep learning algorithms for Parkinson's disease detection using handwriting and voice
58 datasets. Heliyon, 10(3), e25469. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25469
59 Jaskie, K., Martin, J., & Spanias, A. (2021). PV Fault Detection Using Positive Unlabeled Learning. Applied
60 Sciences, 11(12), 5599. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11125599
61
62
63
64
65
 Jiang, J. A., Chuang, C. C., Wang, Y.-C., Hung, C. H., Wang, J.-Y., Lee, C.-H., & Hsiao, Y.-T. (2011). A Hybrid
1 Framework for Fault Detection, Classification, and Location—Part I: Concept, Structure, and
2 Methodology. Ieee Transactions on Power Delivery, 26(3), 1988-1998.
3 https://doi.org/10.1109/tpwrd.2011.2141157
4 Jiao, J., Zhao, M., Lin, J., & Liang, K. (2020). A comprehensive review on convolutional neural network in
5 machine fault diagnosis. Neurocomputing, 417, 36-63.
6 Jin, L. (2023). Real-Time Fault Diagnosis of Photovoltaic Modules for Integrated Energy Systems Based on
7 YOLOv7. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.3004115
8 Jusoh, A., Alik, R., Guan, T. K., & Sutikno, T. (2017). MPPT for PV System Based on Variable Step Size Perturb
9 and Observe Algorithm. Telkomnika (Telecommunication Computing Electronics and Control), 15(1),
10 79. https://doi.org/10.12928/telkomnika.v15i1.3160
11 Ke, L., Liu, Y., & Yang, Y. (2022). Compound Fault Diagnosis Method of Modular Multilevel Converter Based
12 on Improved Capsule Network. Ieee Access, 10, 41201-41214.
13 https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2022.3166948
14 Khalil, I. U., Mahmoud, Y., Jalal, M., Aamir, M., Ahsan, M. U., & Mehmood, K. (2020). Comparative Analysis
15 of Photovoltaic Faults and Performance Evaluation of Its Detection Techniques. Ieee Access, 8, 26676-
16 26700. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.2970531
17 Khoshnami, A., & Sadeghkhani, I. (2018). Sample Entropy‐based Fault Detection for Photovoltaic Arrays. Iet
18 Renewable Power Generation, 12(16), 1966-1976. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-rpg.2018.5220
19 Kong, X. (2023). Prediction of Photoelectric Conversion Efficiency of Organic Photovoltaic Materials Based on
20 Deep Learning. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.3007035
21 Lambert, P., Tredenick, E. C., Duncan, S. R., & Drummond, R. (2023). Detecting Faulty Lithium-Ion Cells in
22 Large-Scale Parallel Battery Packs Using Current Distributions. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-
23 2959700/v1
24 Liao, K.-C., & Lu, J. (2021). Using UAV to Detect Solar Module Fault Conditions of a Solar Power Farm With
25 IR and Visual Image Analysis. Applied Sciences, 11(4), 1835. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11041835
26 Lin, X., Wang, Y., Zhu, D., Chang, N., & Pedram, M. (2012). Online Fault Detection and Tolerance for
27 Photovoltaic Energy Harvesting Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/2429384.2429386
28 Lu, S. D., Wang, M. H., Wei, S., Liu, H. D., & Wu, C.-C. (2021). Photovoltaic Module Fault Detection Based on
29 a Convolutional Neural Network. Processes, 9(9), 1635. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9091635
30 Mahesh, T., Vinoth Kumar, V., Muthukumaran, V., Shashikala, H., Swapna, B., & Guluwadi, S. (2022).
31 Performance analysis of xgboost ensemble methods for survivability with the classification of breast
32 cancer. Journal of Sensors, 2022(1), 4649510.
33 Mellit, A., & Kalogirou, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and internet of things to improve efficacy of diagnosis
34 and remote sensing of solar photovoltaic systems: Challenges, recommendations and future directions.
35 Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 143, 110889.
36 Moloi, K., Hamam, Y., & Jordaan, J. A. (2020). A Support Vector Machine Based Technique for Fault Detection
37 in a Power Distribution Integrated System With Renewable Energy Distributed Generation. Advances in
38 Science Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, 5(4), 577-588. https://doi.org/10.25046/aj050468
39 Muttillo, M., Nardi, I., Stornelli, V., Rubeis, T. d., Pasqualoni, G., & Ambrosini, D. (2020). On Field Infrared
40 Thermography Sensing for PV System Efficiency Assessment: Results and Comparison With Electrical
41 Models. Sensors, 20(4), 1055. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20041055
42 Nguyen, R. D., Smyth, M. D., Zhu, L., Pao, L. P., Swisher, S. K., Kennady, E. H., Mitra, A., Patel, R., Lankford,
43 J., Allmen, G. V., Watkins, M. W., Funke, M., & Shah, M. N. (2021). A Comparison of Machine Learning
44 Classifiers for Pediatric Epilepsy Using Resting‑state Functional MRI Latency Data. Biomedical Reports,
45 15(3). https://doi.org/10.3892/br.2021.1453
46 Pei, T., & Hao, X. (2019). A Fault Detection Method for Photovoltaic Systems Based on Voltage and Current
47 Observation and Evaluation. Energies, 12(9), 1712. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12091712
48
Phan, Q. B., & Tan, T. N. (2023). A Novel Approach for PV Cell Fault Detection Using YOLOv8 and Particle
49
Swarm Optimization. https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.22680484.v1
50
Pinto, A. A., Tejada, J. E., Lopez-Casaperalta, P., & Sulla-Torres, J. (2022). Supervised Machine Learning
51
Techniques for the Prediction of the State of Charge of Batteries in Photovoltaic Systems in the Mining
52
Sector. Ieee Access, 10, 134307-134317. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2022.3225406
53
Rodrigues, S., Mütter, G., Ramos, H. G., & Morgado‐Dias, F. (2020). Machine Learning Photovoltaic String
54
Analyzer. Entropy, 22(2), 205. https://doi.org/10.3390/e22020205
55
56 Rodriguez-Galiano, V. F., Chica-Olmo, M., Abarca-Hernandez, F., Atkinson, P. M., & Jeganathan, C. (2012).
57 Random Forest classification of Mediterranean land cover using multi-seasonal imagery and multi-
58 seasonal texture. Remote Sensing of Environment, 121, 93-107.
59 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.12.003
60
61
62
63
64
65
 Romero, H. F. M., Hernández-Callejo, L., Rebollo, M. Á. G., Cardeñoso-Payo, V. n., Alonso‐Gómez, V., Bello,
1 H. J., Moyo, R. T., & Morales-Aragonés, J. I. (2023). Synthetic Dataset of Electroluminescence Images
2 of Photovoltaic Cells by Deep Convolutional Generative Adversarial Networks. Sustainability, 15(9),
3 7175. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097175
4 Shao, Z., Ahmad, M. N., & Javed, A. (2024). Comparison of Random Forest and XGBoost Classifiers Using
5 Integrated Optical and SAR Features for Mapping Urban Impervious Surface. Remote Sensing, 16(4),
6 665. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/16/4/665
7 Souza, D. L. d., Granzotto, M. H., Almeida, G. M. d., & Oliveira-Lopes, L. C. (2014). Fault Detection and
8 Diagnosis Using Support Vector Machines - A SVC and SVR Comparison. Journal of Safety
9 Engineering, 3(1), 18-29. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.safety.20140301.03
10 Sridharan, N. V., & Sugumaran, V. (2021). Convolutional Neural Network based Automatic Detection of Visible
11 Faults in a Photovoltaic Module. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental
12 Effects, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2021.1905753
13 Starzyński, J., Zawadzki, P., & Harańczyk, D. (2022). Machine Learning in Solar Plants Inspection Automation.
14 Energies, 15(16), 5966. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15165966
15 Sun, J., Sun, F., Fan, J., & Yu, L. (2017). Fault Diagnosis Model of Photovoltaic Array Based on Least Squares
16 Support Vector Machine in Bayesian Framework. Applied Sciences, 7(11), 1199.
17 https://doi.org/10.3390/app7111199
18 Trizoglou, P., Liu, X., & Lin, Z. (2021). Fault detection by an ensemble framework of Extreme Gradient Boosting
19 (XGBoost) in the operation of offshore wind turbines. Renewable Energy, 179, 945-962.
20 Verma, S., Kameswari, Y. L., & Kumar, S. (2024). A Review on Environmental Parameters Monitoring Systems
21 for Power Generation Estimation from Renewable Energy Systems. BioNanoScience, 1-25.
22 Vicente-Gabriel, J., González, A. B. G., Luis-Reboredo, A. d., Chamoso, P., & Corchado, J. M. (2021). LSTM
23 Networks for Overcoming the Challenges Associated With Photovoltaic Module Maintenance in Smart
24 Cities. Electronics, 10(1), 78. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10010078
25 Voutsinas, S., Karolidis, D., Voyiatzis, I., & Σαμαράκου, Μ. (2023). Development of a Machine-Learning-Based
26 Method for Early Fault Detection in Photovoltaic Systems. Journal of Engineering and Applied Science,
27 70(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s44147-023-00200-0
28 Xia, K., Zhang, Z., Liu, B., Guo, H., Wei, Y., Xu, J., & Dong, H. (2020). Data‐enhanced Machine Recognition
29 Model of DC Serial Arc in Electric Vehicle Power System. Iet Power Electronics, 13(19), 4677-4684.
30 https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-pel.2020.0923
31 Yang, H., Chen, M., & Wang, C. (2020). A Hybrid Data-Driven Fault Detection Strategy With Application to
32 Navigation Sensors. Measurement and Control, 53(7-8), 1404-1415.
33 https://doi.org/10.1177/0020294020920891
34 Zhou, S., Qian, S., Chang, W., Xiao, Y., & Cheng, Y. (2018). A Novel Bearing Multi-Fault Diagnosis Approach
35 Based on Weighted Permutation Entropy and an Improved SVM Ensemble Classifier. Sensors, 18(6),
36 1934. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18061934
37 Zhu, H., Zaki, S. A., Alfakih, M. A., Abdelbaky, M. A., Sayed, A. R., & Saif, M. A. A. (2020). Photovoltaic
38 Failure Diagnosis Using Sequential Probabilistic Neural Network Model. Ieee Access, 8, 220507-220522.
39 https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.3043129
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65