2018 IEEE PES/IAS PowerAfrica
Optimization of PV Systems Using Linear
Interactions Regression MPPT Techniques
Adedayo M. Farayola, Yanxia Sun, Ahmed Ali
Department of Electrical & Electronic Engineering Sciences, University of Johannesburg, South Africa
Email: lordfaraday@yahoo.com, ysun@uj.ac.za, aali@uj.ac.za
Abstract--- Supervised machine learning techniques such as
artificial neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) and artificial
neural network (ANN) are powerful techniques used to extract
maximum power from photovoltaic systems. However, these
offline methods require large and accurate training datasets for
effective MPPT. This paper presents an advanced use of the linear
regression with interactions (LIR) technique that can produce
large and very accurate training datasets needed for MPPT
improvement. To confirm the success of the LIR technique,
combination of LIR and ANFIS as LIR-ANFIS technique results
was compared with conventional ANFIS results, and that of
bootstrap aggregation (bagged) and boosted tree ensemble
regression as bagged-ANFIS and boosted-ANFIS results under
different weather conditions. Results show that LIR-ANFIS
technique yielded the best result and with improved performance.
Keywords— ANFIS; Artificial Intelligence (AI); Machine Learning;
MPPT; Optimization; Photovoltaic systems; Regression learning.
I. INTRODUCTION
Photovoltaic energy system has been an energy source that has
been adopted and implemented in many part of the world as a
supplement to hydrocarbon energy sources due to its longer
lifespan, low running cost, inexhaustibility, availability,
harmless, and can be scaled to produce the desired output power
[1]. A PV system is generally used as a standalone, grid-
connected, and hybrid photovoltaic system. An example of a
standalone PV system is the direct-coupled standalone PV
system comprising of PV module(s), DC-DC converter(s), and
maximum power point tracking (MPPT) controller(s) [2]. A PV
panel is made up of several cells. These cells convert sunlight
energy into DC electrical energy and can be used to power
electrical and electronic appliances. The DC-DC converter
converts PV energy from one voltage level to another while
MPPT controllers are used to harvest maximum power from
panels and to protect the connected load from damage under
diverse weather conditions. MPPT techniques are broadly
divided into online, offline, and hybrid MPPT techniques [2, 3].
However, PV systems suffer some drawbacks. For example,
high initial capital cost of panels, low energy conversion rate if
used without a working MPPT controller, and loss in power due
to factors such as partial shading and mismatch effect, DC-DC
converter energy dissipation, and other limitations with some
known MPPT techniques that results into a drop in the extracted
power [2, 3]. Online MPPT techniques such as
978-1-5386-4163-7/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
Perturb&Observe exhibits a drift in power near maximum
power point (MPP) and slow response due to sudden change in
sunlight irradiance. Similarly, offline methods such as ANN
and ANFIS techniques require large and accurate training data
for improved MPPT [4].
Recent work is done using swarm intelligence and evolutionary
techniques such as particle swarm optimisation (PSO), Ant-Bee
colony (ABC), Ant colony optimisation (ACO), and genetic
algorithm (GA) to improve the MPPT performance under both
uniform irradiance and partial shading weather conditions [5,
6]. Still, these MPPT techniques display low-dynamic response
speed. Nonetheless, few work is done using regression learning
techniques for MPPT development in PV systems [7].
Regression machine learning is a type of analytical
modelling technique that examines the connection between the
dependent variable(s) (target X) and the independent variable(s)
(predictor Y) [8]. This method is often used for prediction,
time-series modelling and evaluating the pivotal-weight
relationship with variables. Regression techniques are used in
social science research industry. Applications of regression
learning include house value in real estate prediction, email
spams prediction, salary forecasting, and traffic forecasts [9, 10,
11]
The contribution of this paper is to introduce an innovative use
of a non-robust linear regression with interactions (LIR)
technique for optimization and to improve the MPPT efficiency
in photovoltaic systems. Second contribution is a work done to
validate the effectiveness of the proposed LIR technique. The
LIR technique results were compared with two similar
regression techniques (bootstrap aggregation and least-square
boosted tree techniques) and ANFIS technique results for
MPPT enhancement in photovoltaic systems under different
weather conditions.
The structure of this paper is prepared as follows, section 2 will
present a summary of the used MPPT techniques. In section 3,
a report of the experimental setup and method is provided.
Section 4 will present the results, and section 5 will include the
conclusions.
II. MPPT TECHNIQUES
The MPPT methods used in this experiment are briefly
discussed below:
545
 2018 IEEE PES/IAS PowerAfrica
A. Bagged Tree-Based Ensemble Technique
The bagged tree ensemble or bootstrap aggregation is a machine
learning meta-algorithm proposed by Leo Breiman in 1994.
This is a relatively simple method used to stop overfitting,
reduce the variance (prediction error) with prediction models,
and thus improve the prediction process [12, 13]. Bagging
technique uses a simple averaging of combined bootstrap
samples results and selects the majority vote to find the overall
prediction [13]. Equations (1-2) can be used to explain the
mathematical modelling of bootstrap aggregation technique,
g*k(est) = h n ((X1* ,Y1* ),...,(X*k ,Yk* ))* (1)
1 M *
g*bagging = å g k (est )
M k =1
(2)
Where X i Î R d and Yi Î R d denote the d-dimensional predictor
variable and response variable of a regression learning
respectively, g*k(est) is the bootstrap-target function estimator for
the training datasets, M is the Monte-Carlo approximation, k is
the number of samples, and g*bagging is the bagging ensemble
fitness function. Recently, preimage learning was improved
with bagging ensembles [14]. Some demerits with the use of
bagged tree include computational complexity, loss of
interpretability and longer computation time with large data sets
[15].
B. Boosted Tree-Based Ensemble Technique
The boosted tree ensemble is a committee-based technique
similar to bagging ensemble and both techniques are referred to
as perturb and combine techniques as classification and
regression learning analysis are done using different
perturbations of the original datasets (samples), and the
consequences are merged as a distinct classifier or regression
model [16, 17]. However, boosting is an iterative technique that
uses some averagely-weighted results gotten from employing
extrapolation method with different samples while bagging uses
parallel ensemble approach [18]. Boosted ensemble is
frequently applied with simple learners such as a two-node
decision tree for classification and regression tasks. Boosted
trees often display better performance than bagging during
classification learning. AdaBoost, L2Boost, and Logit-B boost
are the non-conventional boosted tree technique [19, 20].
Equation (3) is a mathematical modelling of boosting ensemble,
M conducted using a complete photovoltaic system that comprises
g*boost = å c k g*k (est ) (3)
k =1
Where c k is the weight of k iterations and is directly
proportional to M (Monte-Carlo approximation), g *boost is the
boosted ensemble function and g*k(est) is the target function.
C. Linear Regression with Interactions Technique
The non-robust interactions linear regression or multiple linear
regression technique is a type of regression technique that
supports multiple variables and is commonly used to solve a
978-1-5386-4163-7/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
more complex regression learning problems [21]. LIR
technique captures the effect in a regression learning analysis
using two or more predictor variables that affect the dependent
response (outcome) in a non-additive way [22]. For example, a
mathematical illustration of the multiple linear regression with
two predictors and an interaction is explained using equation
(4),
y = b0 + b1x1 + b2 x 2 + b3 (x1x 2 ) + e (4)
Where x 2 Î{0,1} is the nominal predictor variable and x1 is
the second predictor variable, y is the target response, e is the
training error, b0, b1, b2, and b3 are the expected value
coefficients such that if x 2 = 0 , the model (y = b0 + b1x1 + e) ,
b0 is the expected value of y when x1 = x 2 = 0 while b1 is the
expected change in y for a unit change in x1 . Similarly, if
x 2 = 1, then y = (b0 + b2 ) + (b1 + b3 )x1 + e while (b0 + b2 ) is
the expected value of y when (x 2 = 1 and x1 = 0) , while
(b1 + b3 ) is the expected change in y for a unit change in x1
and x 2 = 1.
D. ANFIS Technique
This is a type of supervised-machine intelligence technique that
combines the state-of-the-art of the Sugeno fuzzy logic control
inference system and artificial neural network (ANN) into a
single technique known as artificial neuro-fuzzy inference
system (ANFIS) technique [2]. In photovoltaic systems,
ANFIS, an offline MPPT technique performs proficiently with
the non-linear power-to-voltage (P-V) and current-to-voltage
(I-V) characteristics of PV cells and is used to improve the
dynamic performance of MPPT controller. The ANFIS training
datasets can be obtained using real-time data or through
simulation of a developed dynamic photovoltaic cells. Often,
ANFIS MPPT technique is combined with Power-Integral-
Derivative (PID) controller for fine tuning of the model. The
drawback with ANFIS is the need for large and accurate
training dataset to train the ANFIS controller [8].
III. SIMULATION MODEL
To investigate the feasibility with the use of non-robust linear
regression with interactions technique to track the maximum
power point in a standalone PV system, an experiment was
of a soltech 1STH-215-P module, modified cuk DC-DC
converter, MPPT controller, and a twenty ohm load resistor.
The training datasets were obtained using Psim software. Table
1 shows the specifications of the 1STH-215-P module and the
DC-DC converter used. The efficiency of the PV system at the
PV end, resistive load end, and the DC-DC converter loss were
obtained using equations (5-7),
t
PV efficiency at MPPT =
ò 0
Ppv(max)t .dt
(5)
t
ò0
PVpv(mppt )t .dt
546
 2018 IEEE PES/IAS PowerAfrica
t without its training datasets to workspace to make prediction
MCUK load efficiency at MPPT =
òP0 out (mppt )t .dt
(6) using new data (129 predictor variable samples of G and T).
t
ò PV
0 pv(mppt )t .dt The third part dealt with the training, testing, and validation of
the newly-predicted and optimized LIR datasets with ANFIS as
MCUK Losses = input power – output power (7) LIR-ANFIS technique for MPPT task. These datasets were split
in the proportion 75% for training, 15% testing, and 15%
Where Ppv(max) is the extracted power, Ppv(mppt) = 213.15 W is the validation.
rated power at STC (standard test condition), and Pout is the
output power at the 20 Ω resistor.
Stop at t = 0.1 s
Start Regression learning with parallel pool
Table 1: PV and MCUK DC-DC converter specifications support for LIR, Bagged, and boosted tree
regression techniques
Solar Panel Specifications MCUK Specifications
PV Model 1STH-215-P L1 4 mH To Mosfet of DC-DC
Converter
Standard Test Condition 1000W/m2, 25°C L2 4 mH
Maximum Voltage (Vmo) 29.0V C1 100 µF Import few PSIM training
Maximum current (Imp) 7.35A C2 100 µF data (G, T, Ipv) for prediction
Maximum Power (Pmp) 213.15W R0 20 Ω (18 samples)
Duty Cycle D is
Ns – no of cell in series 60 C0 270 µF passed to PWM
controller at 50KHZ
Isc - short circuit current 7.84A
Generate Fitness function frequency as pulse
Voc – open circuit voltage 36.30V yfit = trainedClassifier.predictFcn(X)
without its training datasets and using
LIR, bagged, and boosted Kernels Error e is passed to
Figure 1 displays the block diagram of a complete PV system Where X are the predictor PID controller for
variables (G and T) and yfit is the tuning and to obtain
designed using LIR technique, bagged tree and boosted tree output Response variables (Iref) Duty cycle, D
ensembles. The LIR-ANFIS input variables (G and T) and
outputs (Iref*) as the LIR-ANFIS response. The Iref* was
Use the generated fitness function
compared with the supplied PV current (Ipv) as error signal that to predict new training instances Error( e) = Ipv – Iref*
(129 random predictor samples)
was used to produce duty cycle signal (D). D was then conveyed
through the pulse width modulator (PWM) as pulse signal that
was used to activate the Mosfet gate of the DC-DC converter. Use the ANFIS
Use the 129 newly-predicted system to obtain
samples (inputs G and T, output output Iref*
Iref for ANFIS training, testing
and validation

Irradiance (G) + Load current (Io) + Fig. 2: LIR, bagged and boosted tree ensembles regression learning algorithm
1STH-215-P PV MCUK DC-DC
Load voltage (Vo) Load (20 Ω)
Module Converter
Temperature (T) -
- Mosfet Load power (Po) For the bootstrap-aggregation and the boosted-tree ensemble
- Ipv Pulse signal
regression technique, similar methodology used in the LIR-
G ANFIS modelling (see fig. 1 and fig. 2) were used to implement
+ PI Controller
Pulse Width
the bagged and boosted-tree ensembles regression techniques.
ANFIS Modulator
T For Fine tuning D
Iref* (f = 50kHz)
New training data
(G, T, Iref)
The root mean square error (RMSE), mean square error (MSE),
G T R-squared, mean average error (MAE), prediction speed and
Iref
Generation of time taken to train the above-mentioned techniques (LIR,
129 new samples G G
trained compact
of G and T that
regression learner T 18 samples (PSIM) bagged and boosted tree kernel) were measured and recorded in
were used to (G, T, and Ipv )
predict yfit or Iref*
T with new prediction PV current (Ipv) Table 2, where a model with RMSE approaching 0, R-squared
fitness function (yfit)
near 1, and with high training speed within the shortest time
Fig. 1: PV system designed using LIR, boosted, and bagged tree technique depicts a well-trained regression algorithm.

Figure 2 shows the flowchart algorithm of the non-robust linear Table 2: Training errors, time and speed measuremnts for the used kernels
regression with interactions (LIR) technique. The design of the Collected results LIR Bagged Boosted
RMSE 7.9558e-3 6.7743e-1 2.8307e-1
LIR technique was achieved in three folds. The first fold dealt R-squared 1.000 8.9000e-1 9.8000e-1
with the optimization and generation of a fitness function (yfit) MSE 6.3295e-5 4.5891e-1 8.0128e-2
using LIR kernel and using few samples from the PSIM data MAE 6.1789e-3 5.1089e-1 2.3665e-1
Speed (obs/sec) 130 57 69
sets (18 samples) comprising of irradiance (G), temperature (T) Time (sec) 33.367 59.866 45.863
and PV current (Iref*) to train the model. G and T were used as
predictors while Iref* was the response. Factors such as rainfall, For the conventional ANFIS MPPT technique trained with
cloudy weather, humidity, high sunshine were considered as the sufficient real-time datasets gotten from a dynamic PV
interaction effects that determines the expected response (yfit). simulation, Figure 3 displays the block diagram of a complete
For example, if the day is bright and temperature is mild, then PV system implemented using conventional ANFIS-MPPT
the predicted response is expected to increase and vice versa. technique while Figure 4 shows the flowchart of the used
The second part is the exportation of the compact LIR model ANFIS-MPPT algorithm. The ANFIS controller was trained
978-1-5386-4163-7/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE 547
 2018 IEEE PES/IAS PowerAfrica
with 129 actual samples collected from a dynamic 1STH-215- Table 4 displays the three weather-condition cases used to
P module in the proportion 70% for training, 15% testing and conduct the experiment. For case 1, NOCT, the nominal
15% validating. These samples comprise of two input variables operating condition temperature where the irradiance level (G)
(irradiance (G) and temperature (T)) and one output variable as is 800 Wm-2 and temperature (T) is 47.40 °C. For case 2 (PTC),
Iref. The predicted current (Iref) was compared with the supplied the PVUsa test condition where the irradiance level (G) is 1000
PV current (Ipv) as error signal (Ipv - Iref). The error signal was Wm-2 and temperature (T) is 20 °C while case 3 (STC) is the
then passed to the power-integral (PI) controller for fine tuning standard test condition where the irradiance level (G) is 800
and outputs duty cycle signal (D). The duty cycle signal was Wm-2 and temperature (T) is 47.40 °C.
then channeled to the pulse width modulator (PWM) as pulse
signal which was used to activate the Mosfet gate of the DC- Table 4: The used weather conditions
DC converter. Weather conditions Irradiance (W/m2) Temperature (°C)
Case 1 (NOCT) 800 47.4
Case 2 (PTC) 1000 20.0
Case 3 (STC) 1000 25.0

Irradiance (G) + Load current (Io)

+ IV. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
1STH-215-P PV MCUK DC-DC
Load voltage (Vo) Load (20 Ω)
Temperature (T) Module Converter -
- Mosfet Table 5 and Figures (5-10) display the tabularized and graphical
Load power (Po)
results for the conducted experiment done using conventional
G
- Ipv Pulse signal ANFIS technique, ANFIS trained with linear interaction
PI Controller regression datasets as LIR-ANFIS technique, and modified
ANFIS MPPT + Pulse Width
ANFIS developed using boosted and bagged tree ensembles as
For Fine Modulator
Controller Iref
T
tuning D (f = 50kHz) boosted-ANFIS and bagged-ANFIS MPPT techniques under
the stated weather conditions (NOCT, PTC, and STC).
Fig. 3: Complete PV system designed using ANFIS-MPPT technique
For case 1 (NOCT), results show that the conventional ANFIS
produced the best results at both the PV end and resistive-load
end with 73.28% PV efficiency and 69.95% resistive load
Start
efficiency. This performance was slightly higher than that of
linear regression with interactions (LIR) technique. The non-
Data collection conventional ANFIS technique implemented with the boosted
(G, T)
tree datasets underperformed as 71.87% PV efficiency and
Fuzzification 68.87% load efficiency were obtained at the PV end and load
Irradiance (G) && Temperature (T)

end respectively. The LIR-ANFIS technique exhibited the

ANFIS MPPT

Inference & Rules

lowest DC-DC converter loss (6.40 W) under NOCT condition.
Defuzzification

For case 2 (PTC), LIR-ANFIS had the best result with 102.18%
New membership Is error (e) ≤ max Checking PV efficiency and 97.91% resistive load efficiency. This
functions (MFs) error samples
? efficiency level exceeds 100% because the obtained input
power (Ppv = 217.70 W) exceeded the rated 1STH-215-P MPP
Neural Network End at t=0.100s
power (213.15W) from its datasheet. The non-conventional
- Iref ANFIS implemented with bagged tree datasets as bagged-
PV module + ERROR (Ipv – Iref) Load ANFIS technique underperformed with 97.21% PV efficiency,
Ipv

Duty cycle
93.41% load efficiency, 207.2 W and 199.10 W power at the
PI Controller DC-DC converter PV end and load end respectively. Results also show that the
DC-DC converter loss with bagged-ANFIS was the lowest
Fig. 4 : ANFIS-MPPT algorithm
(8.56 W).
Table 3 displays the average testing error of the conventional
ANFIS MPPT technique trained using 129 actual samples and For case 3 (STC), LIR-ANFIS technique had the best results as
compared with that of 129 predicted samples gotten from LIR, 213.5 W and 204.5 W power and with an efficiency of 100.16%
bagged and boosted tree ensemble regression technique and and 95.94% were harvested at the PV end and load end
using the same proportion to train, test and validate. respectively while the bagged-ANFIS technique yielded the
worst performance as 204.5 W and 196.4 W power with an
Table 3: Average testing error of the used MPPT techniques efficiency of 95.94% and 92.14% were extracted at the PV end
Samples RMSE ANFIS LIR Bagged Boosted and load end respectively. Results also show that the bagged-
92 Training 1.2324e-5 5.5339e-7 3.3703e-1 9.1700e-1 ANFIS technique displayed the lowest DC-DC converter loss
19 Testing 1.1544e-5 4.0076e-7 3.4606e-1 8.8729e-1
18 Checking 7.7248e-5 5.3533e-7 5.1492e-1 8.1446e-1
978-1-5386-4163-7/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE 548
 2018 IEEE PES/IAS PowerAfrica
as 8.10 W was dissipated while high power dissipation occurred
with LIR-ANFIS in all the cases (NOCT, PTC, and STC).

Furthermore, from Table 2 tabulated results, the linear

regression with interactions technique performances were the
best while bagged tree ensemble exhibited the worst training,
testing and checking errors. Similarly, from Table 3 regression
results, LIR exhibited the best performances and with the best
RMSE (7.9558e-3), R-squared error (1.0000), fastest training
speed (130 obs/sec) using the shortest time interval (33.367
seconds) while the bagged tree kernel displayed the worst
Fig. 6: Graph of 1STH-215-P output power at NOCT
performances and consumed time.

Table 5: Results of the conducted experiment under varied weather conditions

Cases Measurement ANFIS Bagged Boosted LIR
PV current (A) 5.843A 5.665A 5.589A 5.834A
PV voltage (V) 26.63V 27.18V 27.38V 26.66V
Load current (A) -2.73A -2.715A -2.709A -2.73A
N
Load voltage (V) -54.60V -54.31V -54.18V -54.59V
O
C PV power (W) 156.20 W 154.30W 153.20W 156.10W
T Load power (W) 149.10W 147.5W 146.80W 149.0W
DC-DC losses (W) 7.10 W 6.80 W 6.40 W 7.10 W
PV Efficiency (%) 73.28% 72.39% 71.87% 73.24%
Load efficiency(%) 69.95% 69.20% 68.87% 69.90%
PV current (A) 7.206A 6.561A 6.924A 7.218A Fig. 7: Graph of 1STH-215-P input power at PTC
PV voltage (V) 30.1V 31.55V 30.85V 30.06V
Load current (A) -3.23A -3.155A -3.205A -3.230A
Load voltage (V) -64.6V -63.10V -64.10V -64.61V
P
T PV power (W) 217.7W 207.2W 214.1W 217.8W
C Load power (W) 208.6W 199.10W 205.50W 208.7W
DC-DC losses (W) 9.10 W 8.10 W 8.60 W 9.10 W
PV Efficiency (%) 102.13% 97.21% 100.4% 102.18%
Load efficiency(%) 97.87% 93.41% 96.41% 97.91%
PV current (A) 7.225A 6.640A 6.936A 7.233A
PV voltage (V) 29.43V 30.76V 30.19V 29.41V
Load current (A) -3.197A -3.134A -3.173A -3.198A
S
Load voltage (V) -63.95V -62.67V -63.45V -63.96V
T
C PV power (W) 213.4W 204.5W 209.8W 213.5 W
Fig. 8: Graph of 1STH-215-P output power at PTC
Load power (W) 204.5W 196.4W 201.3W 204.5W
DC-DC losses (W) 8.90 W 8.10 W 8.50 W 9.00 W
PV Efficiency (%) 100.12% 95.94% 98.43% 100.16%
Load efficiency(%) 95.94% 92.14% 94.44% 95.94%

Fig. 9: Graph of 1STH-215-P input power at STC

Fig. 5: Graph of 1STH-215-P input power at NOCT

Fig. 10: Graph of 1STH-215-P output power at STC

978-1-5386-4163-7/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE 549
 2018 IEEE PES/IAS PowerAfrica
[12] N.Vladimir, "Prediction of The Shoppers Loyalty with Aggregated Data
V. CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents an advanced use of regression learning
techniques (data mining techniques) such as the linear
regression with interactions (LIR) learning technique to track
the maximum power point in PV systems. Obtained results
recommend that optimization of PV systems using LIR
technique can be used to extract maximum power from a
photovoltaic module(s) under diverse weather conditions. Also,
LIR can effectively produce the large and accurate training data
(datasets) required to train supervised machine learning
techniques such as ANN and ANFIS. The root mean-square-
error (RMSE) and regression statistics with LIR were better
than that of conventional ANFIS, boosted, and bagged tree
techniques. It was also validated that LIR was the fastest and
trains using shortest possible time.
REFERENCES
[1] Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, ISE,
"PHOTOVOLTAICS REPORT," Fraunhofer ISE, Freiburg, Germany,
2016.
[2] A. M. Farayola, "Comparative study of different photovoltaic MPPT
techniques under various weather conditions (Thesis submitted in partial
fulfillment for the degree of Masters in Electrical Engineering),"
University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa, 2017.
[3] B. Pakkiraiah and G. D. Sukumar, "Research Survey on Various MPPT
Performance Issues to Improve the Solar PV System Efficiency," Journal
of Solar Energy, vol. 2016, pp. 1-20, 2016.
[4] R. Boukenoui and R. Bradai; A. Mellit; M. Ghanes; H. Salhi, "
Comparative analysis of P&O, modified hill climbing-FLC, and adaptive
P&O-FLC MPPTs for microgrid standalone PV system," in 2015
International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and
Applications (ICRERA), Milwaukee, USA, 2015.
[5] A. M. Farayola, A. N. Hasan, A. Ali, and B. Twala, "Distributive MPPT
Approach Using ANFIS and Perturb&Observe Techniques Under
Uniform and Partial Shading Conditions," in International Conference on
Artificial Intelligence and Evolutionary Computations in Engineering
Systems & Power, Circuit and Information Technologies (ICPCIT-
2017), India, 2017.
[6] R. J. Prasanth and B. T. Sudhakar, "A comprehensive review on solar PV
maximum power point tracking techniques," Renewable and Sustainable
Energy, ELSEVIER, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 826-847, 2017.
[7] H. Shareef, A. H. Mutlag, and A. Mohamed, "Random Forest-Based
Approach for Maximum Power Point Tracking of Photovoltaic Systems
Operating under Actual Environmental Conditions," Computational
Intelligence and Neuroscience, vol. 2017, pp. 1-17, 2017.
[8] A. M. Farayola, A. Ali, and A. Ahmed, "Optimization of PV Systems
Using Data Mining and Regression Learner MPPT Techniques,"
Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineeering and Computer Science
(IJEECS), vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1-9, 2018.
[9] A. M. Farayola, A. N. Hasan, and A. Ahmed, "Efficient Photovoltaic
MPPT System Using Coarse Gaussian Support Vector Machine And
Artificial Neural Network Techniques," International Journal of
Innovative Computing, Information and Control, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 323-
339, 2018.
[10] A. O. Khedr-Ibrahim, Regression Based Multi-Stage Algorithmto Track
the Maximum Power Point for Photovoltaic Systems (in fulfillment of
the Master of Science), Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: University of
Waterloo, 2012.
[11] J. B. Guerard, "Introduction to Financial Forecasting in Investment
Analysis," Springer Science+Business Media, vol. 2013, no. 1, pp. 19-
45, 2013.
978-1-5386-4163-7/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
Streams," Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing
Research, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 69-79, 2016.
[13] C. D. Sutton, "Classification and Regression Trees, Bagging, and
Boosting," Handbook of Statistics, vol. 24, pp. 303-329, 2005.
[14] S. Amit, A. Sahu, D. Apley, and G. Runger, "Preimages for Variation
Patterns from Kernel PCA and Bagging," IIE Transactions, vol. 46, no.
5, pp. 429-456, 2014.
[15] S. Clemencon, D. Marine, and V. Nicolas, "Bagging ranking trees," in In
IEEE International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications
(ICMLA09), Florida, USA, 2009.
[16] M. Galar, A. Fernandez, E. Barrenechea, H. Bustince, and F. Herrera, "A
review on ensembles for the class imbalance problem: bagging-,
boosting, and hybrid-based approaches," IEEE Transactions on Systems,
Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Application), vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 463-484,
2012.
[17] B. Rico and F. Piotr, "Random Rotation Ensembles," Journal of Machine
Learning Research, vol. 2, pp. 1-15, 2015.
[18] T. Chen, Introduction to boosted trees, Washington, USA: University of
Washington, 2014.
[19] S. A. Naghibi, H. R. Pourghasemi, H. R. and B. Dixon , "GIS-based
groundwater potential mapping using boosted regression tree,
classification and regression tree, and random forest machine learning
models in Iran," Environmental monitoring and assessment, vol. 188, no.
1, p. 44, S. A. Naghibi, H. R. Pourghasemi, and B. Dixon.
[20] P. Natalia, C. Thomas, H. Gilbert, H. Salem, R. Soroush, "Compact
multi-class boosted trees," in 2017 IEEE International Conference on Big
Data (BIGDATA), Boston, USA, 2017.
[21] H. Ning and Z. H. Hao, "A note on high dimensional linear regression
with interactions," The American Statistician, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 291-297,
2017.
[22] C. Cadelina and K. M. Rudy, "Website quality impact on customers'
purchase intention through social commerce website," in In 2017
International Conference on Information Management and Technology
(ICIMTech), Jarkata, Indonesia, 2017.
[23] M. A Hussain, A. Tariq, S. Hameed, M. Saad Bin Arif, and A. Jain,
"Comparative assessment of maximum power point tracking procedures
for photovoltaic systems," Green Energy and Environment
(ScienceDirect), vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 5-17, 2017.
[24] Wikipedia, "Data mining," 11 July 2017. [Online]. Available:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining. [Accessed 20 June 2017].
[25] A. G. Wilson, H. Zhiting, S. Ruslan, and E. P. Xing, "Deep kernel
learning," in In Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 2016, pp. 370-378.
[26] K. Lappalainen and S. Valkealahti, "Effects of irradiance transition
characteristics on the mismatch losses of different electrical PV array
configurations," The Institute of Engineering and Technology (IET)
Renewable Power Generation, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 248-254, 2017.
[27] M. E. El Telbany, A. Youssef, and A. A. Zekry, "Intelligent Techniques
for MPPT Control in Photovoltaic Systems: A Comprehensive Review,"
in 2014 4th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence with
Applications in Engineering and Technology (ICAIET 2014), Kinabalu,
Malaysia, 2014.
[28] J. Brownlee, Master Machine Learning Algorithms: Discover how They
Work and Implement Them from Scratch, 2016.
[29] A. M. Farayola, A. N. Hasan, and A. Ali "Comparison of Modified
Incremental Conductance and Fuzzy Logic MPPT Algorithm Using
Modified CUK Converter," in 8th IEEE International Renewable Energy
Congress (IREC), Amman, Jordan, 2017.
550