ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2025
A comparative study of the performance of ten metaheuristic algorithms for parameter estimation of solar photovoltaic models.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimized parameter estimation of solar PV models using an improved red-tailed hawk algorithm.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Two-layer hierarchical MPPT strategy of PV systems based on AF-EPO algorithm under complex irradiance conditions.Frontiers in neurorobotics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study conducts a comparative analysis of the performance of ten novel and well-performing metaheuristic algorithms for parameter estimation of solar photovoltaic models. This optimization problem involves accurately identifying parameters that reflect the complex and nonlinear behaviours of photovoltaic cells affected by changing environmental conditions and material inconsistencies. This estimation is challenging due to computational complexity and the risk of optimization errors, which can hinder reliable performance predictions. The algorithms evaluated include the Crayfish Optimization Algorithm, the Golf Optimization Algorithm, the Coati Optimization Algorithm, the Crested Porcupine Optimizer, the Growth Optimizer, the Artificial Protozoa Optimizer, the Secretary Bird Optimization Algorithm, the Mother Optimization Algorithm, the Election Optimizer Algorithm, and the Technical and Vocational Education and Training-Based Optimizer. These algorithms are applied to solve four well-established photovoltaic models: the single-diode model, the double-diode model, the triple-diode model, and different photovoltaic module models. The study focuses on key performance metrics such as execution time, number of function evaluations, and solution optimality. The results reveal significant differences in the efficiency and accuracy of the algorithms, with some algorithms demonstrating superior performance in specific models. The Friedman test was utilized to rank the performance of the various algorithms, revealing the Growth Optimizer as the top performer across all the considered models. This optimizer achieved a root mean square error of 9.8602187789E-04 for the single-diode model, 9.8248487610E-04 for both the double-diode and triple-diode models and 1.2307306856E-02 for the photovoltaic module model. This consistent success indicates that the Growth Optimizer is a strong contender for future enhancements aimed at further boosting its efficiency and effectiveness. Its current performance suggests significant potential for improvement, making it a promising focus for ongoing development efforts. The findings contribute to the understanding of the applicability and performance of metaheuristic algorithms in renewable energy systems, providing valuable insights for optimizing photovoltaic models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.