Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41057416›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Effectiveness of supervised machine learning models for electrical fault detection in solar PV systems.

Ved Khandeparkar, Shreshtha, Senthil Kumar Ramu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ved KhandeparkarSchool of Electrical Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600127, India.
ShreshthaSchool of Electrical Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600127, India.
Senthil Kumar RamuSchool of Electrical Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600127, India. senthilkumar.ramu@vit.ac.in.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Even though Photovoltaic (PV) systems have emerged as a viable substitute for non-renewable energy sources, their widespread integration into the electrical grid presents several issues today. On the other hand, various faults are a key concern affecting PV plants' production and longevity. The current study uses Machine Learning (ML) algorithms such as Decision Tree (DT), Naïve Bayes (NB), Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machine (SVM) and XGBoost to detect and classify PV errors corresponding to Short Circuits (SC), Open Circuits (OC), Ground Faults (GF), and Mismatch Faults (MF). Simulations were conducted in MATLAB/Simulink to analyse voltage, current, and power variations during fault conditions and study their impact. The proposed results show that the effectiveness of ML in electrical fault detection, with the following classification accuracies: SVM - 97.40%, DT- 97.20%, RF - 97.20%, NB - 97.60%, and XGBoost - 98.0%. The effectiveness of the classification is confirmed through confusion matrices and correlation heatmaps. This research highlights the need for integrating intelligent monitoring, real-time IoT-based detection, and prediction analytics to improve PV system reliability.

Indexed as

ClassificationFault detectionMachine learningPV

Identifiers

PMID41057416
PMCPMC12504579

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.