A Hybrid Ensemble Learning Framework for Image-Based Solar Panel Classification

Sandeep Kumar; Vivek Tetarwal

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 21 references

A Hybrid Ensemble Learning Framework for Image-Based Solar Panel Classification

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A dual ensemble neural network (DENN) classifies clean versus soiled solar panels at 94.59% accuracy, beating seven baseline ensembles.

desk verdict The paper's headline results table is internally inconsistent, and the architecture is a minor variation on feature-level ensembles. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01778 v1 pith:ZYKUWWUX submitted 2025-07-02 cs.IT cs.CVmath.IT

Vivek Tetarwal , Sandeep Kumar This is my paper

classification cs.ITcs.CVmath.IT

keywords solarpaneldefectdetectionResNet-50dualensembledeepneuralnetworkmeta-classifierSMOTEcleanvssoiledclassification

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that a hybrid ensemble called DENN can tell clean from soiled solar panel images more accurately than the standard ensemble methods used for comparison. On a public dataset of 45,721 images, it reports 94.59% accuracy, precision, recall, and 94.51% F1-score, with a G-mean of 0.8956, against seven baselines whose accuracies range from 82.6% to 91.9%. The reason offered for the gain is that DENN combines a CNN-style branch and an MLP-style branch at the feature level, then lets a meta-classifier decide, rather than averaging the final decisions of separate models. If the reported numbers hold, automated image-based soiling detection becomes a stronger candidate for solar-plant maintenance scheduling.

What carries the argument

DENN is the dual-branch hybrid: an input feature vector $x$ of dimension $d$ is split into two halves of size $d/2$, one processed by a CNN-style branch and one by an MLP-style branch, each applying a linear transformation followed by ReLU. The two branch outputs are concatenated into a fused vector, and a meta-classifier layer with softmax maps that fused vector to class probabilities. The identity carrying the argument is feature-level fusion, which the paper says lets the model exploit both spatial/hierarchical and abstract representations while reducing bias and variance. SMOTE is used to rebalance the minority class in feature space, and cross-entropy loss trains the whole pipeline.

What would settle it

Tag every SMOTE-generated feature vector, split the dataset into its 80% training and 20% test partitions, and check whether any synthetic vector lands in the test set; if it does, the reported accuracy is inflated by data leakage. In addition, recover the exact power-loss threshold that defines clean versus soiled and recompute all metrics after relabeling with that threshold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that DENN outperforms every compared ensemble method on every headline metric under identical feature-extraction and training conditions. Using features from a pretrained 50-layer residual convolutional network, DENN reaches 94.59% accuracy, 94.56% precision, 94.59% recall, and 94.51% F1-score on the held-out test portion of the public solar panel dataset, with a G-mean of 0.8956. The paper attributes this advantage to ensembling before classification: the input feature vector is divided, processed by a CNN branch and an MLP branch, concatenated, and passed to a softmax meta-classifier. It contrasts this feature-level ensemble with decision-level methods such as bagging, boosting, voting, cascading, blending, dual bagging-boosting, and dynamic averaging, and reports that the best decision-level baselines stay near 91.9%.

Load-bearing premise

The reported accuracy depends on the assumption that SMOTE oversampling was applied only to the training portion of the 80/20 split, so that synthetic samples never entered the test set; the paper does not explicitly state that this sequence was followed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Operators could use DENN-style image screening to flag soiled panels automatically and schedule cleaning, cutting manual inspection costs.
The reported margin suggests that feature-level fusion can beat decision-level averaging even when all models share the same pretrained features.
Because DENN works on extracted feature vectors rather than raw images, the dual-branch design is a candidate drop-in head for other image-classification pipelines.
The G-mean of 0.8956 indicates the model remains reasonably balanced on clean and soiled classes after SMOTE rebalancing, supporting use in imbalanced field data.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial inference: the reported ordering of baselines, with bagging and cascading near 91.9% and boosting near 82.6%, suggests that on these features representation-level fusion adds more than the choice of boosting schedule; one could test this by swapping the meta-classifier for a deeper head and measuring the new margin.
Editorial inference: since the paper leaves the power-loss threshold for clean/soiled labels unspecified, a natural robustness check is to recompute DENN's accuracy across a range of thresholds, which would show whether the 94.59% figure is tied to one labeling choice.
Editorial inference: the same dual-branch fusion could be applied to other image-based defect classification tasks, such as hotspot localization, where pretrained features plus feature-level ensembling may transfer more readily than decision-level averages.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The main thing you need to know: the results table cannot be right as printed. For every row, accuracy and recall are identical to six decimals, which in binary classification forces specificity to equal sensitivity and therefore forces G-mean to equal accuracy. DENN's reported G-mean is 0.8956 while accuracy is 0.9459, so no single confusion matrix can produce the listed accuracy, recall, and G-mean. The same issue appears in every baseline row. This is load-bearing because the central claim—94.59% accuracy—rests on that table.

What is actually new is modest. DENN splits a ResNet-50 feature vector into two halves, passes each half through a single linear-plus-ReLU layer, concatenates the outputs, and runs a softmax meta-classifier. That is a two-layer MLP over fixed features with a stylistic split; nothing in the architecture is theoretically or empirically motivated by an ablation. The paper does give credit where due: it uses the public DeepSolarEye dataset, compares against seven classical ensemble baselines, and describes its pipeline clearly enough to reproduce if the missing details were added.

The soft spots are real. The SMOTE description never states whether oversampling happens before or after the train/test split; if before, synthetic samples leak into the test set. There are no error bars, no cross-validation, no code, and no hyperparameter values. "State-of-the-art" is an overclaim: the comparison set is classical ensembles on deep features, not end-to-end deep networks or recent soiling-detection models. The G-mean values are also implausible for the accuracies reported, which reinforces the metric confusion.

Who is this for? A reader who wants a quick sanity check of how bagging, boosting, voting, cascading, blending, and dual bagging/boosting behave on ResNet-50 features from DeepSolarEye. Not a reader who needs a trustworthy classifier comparison. The paper is clearly written and the authors are engaging the right literature, but the primary evidence is internally inconsistent.

My recommendation: desk reject in the current form. If the authors fix Table 1, clarify the SMOTE ordering, publish code and exact splits, and add standard deviations, this could become a modest applied workshop paper. Right now it would waste referee time.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Dual Ensemble Neural Network (DENN) for binary classification of clean versus soiled solar panel images. ResNet-50 features are extracted from the DeepSolarEye dataset, and DENN splits each feature vector into two halves, processes them through a CNN-based branch and an MLP-based branch, concatenates the resulting representations, and applies a meta-classifier. The method is compared with seven ensemble baselines (bagging, boosting, voting, cascading, blending, dual bagging and boosting, and dynamic ensembling). The authors report that DENN achieves the highest accuracy (94.59%), precision (94.56%), recall (94.59%), and F1-score (94.51%), with a G-Mean of 0.8956, and conclude that it reaches state-of-the-art performance on this dataset.

Significance. If the empirical claim were fully supported, the contribution would be modest but useful: a feature-level dual-branch ensemble on pretrained ResNet-50 features, evaluated on a public benchmark with multiple classic ensemble baselines. The paper's strengths are its use of a public dataset, the comparison against seven baselines, and a clearly described architecture. However, the primary evidence is compromised by an internal inconsistency in Table 1 and an unresolved SMOTE preprocessing order, and the comparison lacks modern deep-learning baselines and any measure of variance. As presented, the significance of the claimed result cannot be assessed reliably.

major comments (4)

[Section IV, Table 1] The reported metrics are mutually inconsistent for a binary classifier. In every row, Accuracy equals Recall to six decimal places (e.g., DENN 0.945949 / 0.945949; Bagging 0.918868 / 0.918868). For a binary confusion matrix, Accuracy = Recall implies TN/N = TP/P, so specificity equals sensitivity and G-Mean = sqrt(sensitivity * specificity) equals Accuracy. The listed G-Mean values (e.g., DENN 0.895604, Bagging 0.807251) are far from the corresponding accuracy values, so no valid confusion matrix can produce the table. The paper must provide the numerical confusion matrices and re-derive all metrics; the headline "94.59% accuracy" is currently unsupported.
[Section II.C, Preprocessing] The manuscript states that SMOTE was applied to create synthetic samples for the minority class but does not specify whether this was done before or after the 80/20 split described in Section II.A. If SMOTE runs before the split, synthetic minority samples enter the test set, and all reported metrics are inflated. The authors must clarify the order and, if necessary, rerun the experiments with SMOTE applied only to the training split.
[Section II.A and Section IV, Table 1] The experimental protocol uses a single 80/20 split with no error bars, confidence intervals, or cross-validation. The reported differences between methods are small (e.g., Bagging 0.918868 vs. Cascading 0.918868), so without variance estimates the claim that DENN outperforms the baselines cannot be distinguished from noise. Repeated stratified splits or k-fold cross-validation with standard deviations are needed.
[Section IV and Abstract] The "state-of-the-art" claim is not supported by the experimental comparison. The baselines are classic ensemble methods trained on ResNet-50 features; there is no comparison with fine-tuned CNN classifiers, transformer-based models, or the DeepSolarEye FCN from the dataset's source paper [14]. Without such baselines, the abstract and conclusion overstate the result.

minor comments (6)

[Section II.A] The threshold on power loss values that separates 'soiled' from 'clean' is undefined; this threshold is needed to interpret the class labels and the reported accuracy.
[Section IV] The G-Mean metric is never defined. Please define it explicitly, including how the per-class recalls are computed.
[Section II.D] The mathematical notation is garbled (e.g., the softmax symbol in Eq. (4) is rendered as '!'), which makes the equations difficult to read.
[Fig. 3] The confusion matrices are described qualitatively but are not numerically legible in the text; include exact counts or a higher-resolution figure.
[References] Reference [19] is a blog post rather than a peer-reviewed source for the blending method; consider citing a standard machine-learning text instead.
[Throughout] There are minor typographical issues, including 'metrices' in Section IV and the inconsistent F1-score value of 94.51% in the abstract versus 94.50% in the conclusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is an empirical benchmark result evaluated on a held-out test set, not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central assertion is empirical: DENN is trained with cross-entropy loss and evaluated against held-out test images, with all reported metrics derived from that evaluation. Equations (1)-(5) define the network architecture and loss; they do not assume the reported accuracy, precision, recall, F1, or G-Mean. The comparison baselines are standard ensemble methods taken from external references, and no parameter is fitted to the test labels or to the headline metric. The potential SMOTE-before-split contamination would be a data-leakage soundness problem, not circular reasoning, because the claim would still depend on test-set evaluation rather than on an identity between input and output. The internally inconsistent Table 1 (accuracy equals recall in every row while G-Mean diverges) is a correctness and reporting problem, not a circularity problem. There is no self-citation chain and no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work. Accordingly, the derivation chain is self-contained as an experimental study, and no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on several unstated choices: label threshold, SMOTE handling, feature extractor, and baseline tuning. None of these are accompanied by ablations or external validation, so the reported 94.59% is conditional on these choices.

free parameters (5)

Feature vector split ratio (two equal halves) = 0.5 / 0.5
The ResNet-50 feature vector is split into two equal parts for the CNN and MLP branches with no ablation or justification; this choice affects the architecture and the reported accuracy.
Number of training epochs = 30
The model is trained for 30 epochs; no early stopping or epoch sensitivity analysis is reported, and final loss 0.3173 depends on this choice.
SMOTE oversampling parameters = not reported (sklearn defaults implied)
SMOTE is applied to balance classes, but the number of nearest neighbors and sampling strategy are not specified, yet they determine how synthetic samples are created before training.
Power loss threshold for clean/soiled labels = not reported
Images are binarized into clean and soiled based on unique power loss values, but the threshold is never given, and all downstream metrics depend on this label definition.
Branch and meta-classifier hidden dimensions = not reported
The linear layers in the CNN and MLP branches and the meta-classifier have unspecified output sizes, which determine model capacity and the numerical results.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The power-loss-based labels in DeepSolarEye are reliable ground truth for soiling
Section II.A states images are classified as soiled or clean on the basis of power loss values, but no validation of label quality or threshold is provided.
domain assumption Pretrained ResNet-50 features are informative for solar panel soiling
Section II.B uses a modified ResNet-50 without fine-tuning as the sole feature extractor; the entire classification relies on these features being discriminative.
domain assumption The 80/20 train/test split is random and representative
Section II.A describes the split but gives no stratification, seed, or distribution check, so generalization claims depend on this assumption.
domain assumption SMOTE is applied only to training data and does not leak test information
Section II.C describes SMOTE but does not state whether it is applied before or after the split; test set integrity depends on this.
domain assumption Ensemble baselines are implemented fairly with comparable hyperparameters
Section III lists scikit-learn classifiers but gives no hyperparameter settings, so the comparison could benefit DENN if baselines are not tuned.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Hybrid Ensemble Learning Framework for Image-Based Solar Panel Classification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZYKUWWUX

@misc{pith2026250701778,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Hybrid Ensemble Learning Framework for Image-Based Solar Panel Classification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZYKUWWUX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01778}
}

read the original abstract

The installation of solar energy systems is on the rise, and therefore, appropriate maintenance techniques are required to be used in order to maintain maximum performance levels. One of the major challenges is the automated discrimination between clean and dirty solar panels. This paper presents a novel Dual Ensemble Neural Network (DENN) to classify solar panels using image-based features. The suggested approach utilizes the advantages offered by various ensemble models by integrating them into a dual framework, aimed at improving both classification accuracy and robustness. The DENN model is evaluated in comparison to current ensemble methods, showcasing its superior performance across a range of assessment metrics. The proposed approach performs the best compared to other methods and reaches state-of-the-art accuracy on experimental results for the Deep Solar Eye dataset, effectively serving predictive maintenance purposes in solar energy systems. It reveals the potential of hybrid ensemble learning techniques to further advance the prospects of automated solar panel inspections as a scalable solution to real-world challenges.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01778 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Images from DeepSolarEye Dataset [14]: (a) Clean panel; (b) & (c) Soiled panels The organization of the paper is as follows: Section II describes the detailed methodology, including feature extraction and ensemble techniques. In Section III, the experimental results are presented and analysed, highlighting the comparative performance of various methods. Finally, Section IV concludes the paper and outlines potential … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** System Block Diagram [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Confusion Matrices for DENN and other ensemble methods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: shows the comparison of different ensemble learning methods based on four metrics namely Accuracy, Precision, F1-Score, and G-Mean by means of a radar chart. The legend indicates various ensemble techniques, including Dual Ensemble, Bagging, Boosting, Voting Ensemble, …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[14]

Deepsolareye: Power loss prediction and weakly supervised soiling localization via fully convoluti onal networks for solar panels,

S. Mehta, A. P. Azad, S. A. Chemmengath, V. Raykar, and S. Kalyanaraman, "Deepsolareye: Power loss prediction and weakly supervised soiling localization via fully convoluti onal networks for solar panels," in IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV) , 2018

work page 2018
[1]

PV array soiling detection using machine learning,

J. Martin, K. Jaskie, Y. Tofis, and A. Spanias, "PV array soiling detection using machine learning," in 2021 12th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems & Applications (IISA) , Chania Crete, Greece, 2021, pp. 1–4

work page 2021
[2]

Solar panel hotspot localization and fault classification using deep learning approa ch,

S. P. Pathak, S. Patil, and S. Patel, "Solar panel hotspot localization and fault classification using deep learning approa ch," Procedia Comput. Sci. , vol. 204, pp. 698–705, 2022

work page 2022
[3]

Improved solar panel efficiency th rough dust detection using the InceptionV3 transfer learning m odel,

N. N. I. Prova, "Improved solar panel efficiency th rough dust detection using the InceptionV3 transfer learning m odel," in 2024 8th International Conference on I-SMAC (IoT in Soci al, Mobile, Analytics and Cloud) (I-SMAC) , Kirtipur, Nepal, 2024, pp. 260– 268

work page 2024
[4]

SolNet: A convolutional neural network for detecting dust on solar panel,

M. S. H. Onim, Z. M. M. Sakif, A. Ahnaf, A. Kabir, A. K. Azad, A. M. T. Oo, R. Afreen, S. T. Hridy, M. Hossain, an d T. Jabid, "SolNet: A convolutional neural network for detecting dust on solar panel," Energies , vol. 16, no. 1, p. 155, 2023

work page 2023
[5]

Detection of soiling on PV module using deep learning,

S. Selvi, V. Devaraj, R. P. PS, and K. Subramani, " Detection of soiling on PV module using deep learning," Int. J. Electr. Electron. Eng. , vol. 10, pp. 93–101, 2023

work page 2023
[6]

PV module soiling detec tion using visible spectrum imaging and machine learning,

B. I. Evstatiev, D. T. Trifonov, K. G. Gabrovska-Ev statieva, N. P. Valov, and N. P. Mihailov, "PV module soiling detec tion using visible spectrum imaging and machine learning," Energies , vol. 17, no. 20, 2024

work page 2024
[7]

Automatic soiling and partial shading asse ssment on PV modules through RGB images analysis,

R. Cavieres, R. Barraza, D. Estay, J. Bilbao, and P . Valdivia- Lefort, "Automatic soiling and partial shading asse ssment on PV modules through RGB images analysis," Appl. Energy , vol. 306, p. 117964, 2022

work page 2022

Show all 21 references

[8]

Deep-learning-based probabilistic estimation of solar PV soiling loss,

W. Zhang, S. Liu, O. Gandhi, C. D. Rodríguez-Galleg os, H. Quan, and D. Srinivasan, "Deep-learning-based probabilistic estimation of solar PV soiling loss," IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy , vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 2436–2444, 2021

2021
[9]

Application of deep learning based detector YOLOv5 for soiling recognition in photovoltaic modules,

E. K. Hajar, E. Rachid, B. Mohamed, A. Youssef, and M. Abdelkader, "Application of deep learning based detector YOLOv5 for soiling recognition in photovoltaic modules," i n 3rd International Conference on Innovative Research in Applied Science, Engineering and Technology (IRAS...

2023
[10]

Non- invasive health status diagnosis of solar PV panel using ensemble classifier,

K. S. Krishna Veni, N. Senthil Kumar, and J. Gnanav adivel, "Non- invasive health status diagnosis of solar PV panel using ensemble classifier," Electr. Eng. , 2024

2024
[11]

A supervised ensemble le arning method for fault diagnosis in photovoltaic strings,

C. Kapucu and M. Cubukcu, "A supervised ensemble le arning method for fault diagnosis in photovoltaic strings, " Energy , vol. 227, p. 120463, 2021

2021
[12]

Two-stage s elective ensemble of CNN via deep tree training for medical image classification,

Y. Yang, Y. Hu, X. Zhang, and S. Wang, "Two-stage s elective ensemble of CNN via deep tree training for medical image classification," IEEE Trans. Cybern. , vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 9194–9207, 2021

2021
[13]

Ensemble of convolutional neural networks for bioimage classification,

L. Nanni, S. Ghidoni, and S. Brahnam, "Ensemble of convolutional neural networks for bioimage classification," Appl. Comput. Inform. , vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 19–35, 2021

2021
[15]

Bagging predictors,

L. Breiman, "Bagging predictors," Mach. Learn. , vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 123–140, 1996

1996
[16]

A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting,

Y. Freund and R. E. Schapire, "A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting," J. Comput. Syst. Sci. , vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 119–139, 1997

1997
[17]

L. I. Kuncheva, Combining Pattern Classifiers: Methods and Algorithms , 1st ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley-Interscience, 2004

2004
[18]

Zhou, Ensemble Methods: Foundations and Algorithms , 1st ed

Z.-H. Zhou, Ensemble Methods: Foundations and Algorithms , 1st ed. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, 2012

2012
[19]

Blending ensemble machine learning wi th Python,

J. Brownlee, "Blending ensemble machine learning wi th Python," Machine Learning Mastery , 2021. [Online]. Available: https://machinelearningmastery.com/blending-ensemble-machine- learning-with-python/. [Accessed: Jan. 25, 2025]

2021
[20]

Combination of bagging and boosting ensemble learning methods: A solution to model underfitting and overfitting,

N. Ezeora, S. Abhadiomhen, N. Chiemela, B. Uzo, G. Anichebe, C. Asogwa, U. Izuchukwu, and N. Emeka, "Combination of bagging and boosting ensemble learning methods: A solution to model underfitting and overfitting," in Proc. iSTEAMS Multidisciplinary Cross-Border Conference , 2...

2022
[21]

A dynami c ensemble learning algorithm for neural networks,

K. M. R. Alam, N. Siddique, and H. Adeli, "A dynami c ensemble learning algorithm for neural networks," Neural Comput. Appl. , vol. 32, no. 12, pp. 8675–8690, 2020

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [14]

Deepsolareye: Power loss prediction and weakly supervised soiling localization via fully convoluti onal networks for solar panels,

S. Mehta, A. P. Azad, S. A. Chemmengath, V. Raykar, and S. Kalyanaraman, "Deepsolareye: Power loss prediction and weakly supervised soiling localization via fully convoluti onal networks for solar panels," in IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV) , 2018

work page 2018

[2] [1]

PV array soiling detection using machine learning,

J. Martin, K. Jaskie, Y. Tofis, and A. Spanias, "PV array soiling detection using machine learning," in 2021 12th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems & Applications (IISA) , Chania Crete, Greece, 2021, pp. 1–4

work page 2021

[3] [2]

Solar panel hotspot localization and fault classification using deep learning approa ch,

S. P. Pathak, S. Patil, and S. Patel, "Solar panel hotspot localization and fault classification using deep learning approa ch," Procedia Comput. Sci. , vol. 204, pp. 698–705, 2022

work page 2022

[4] [3]

Improved solar panel efficiency th rough dust detection using the InceptionV3 transfer learning m odel,

N. N. I. Prova, "Improved solar panel efficiency th rough dust detection using the InceptionV3 transfer learning m odel," in 2024 8th International Conference on I-SMAC (IoT in Soci al, Mobile, Analytics and Cloud) (I-SMAC) , Kirtipur, Nepal, 2024, pp. 260– 268

work page 2024

[5] [4]

SolNet: A convolutional neural network for detecting dust on solar panel,

M. S. H. Onim, Z. M. M. Sakif, A. Ahnaf, A. Kabir, A. K. Azad, A. M. T. Oo, R. Afreen, S. T. Hridy, M. Hossain, an d T. Jabid, "SolNet: A convolutional neural network for detecting dust on solar panel," Energies , vol. 16, no. 1, p. 155, 2023

work page 2023

[6] [5]

Detection of soiling on PV module using deep learning,

S. Selvi, V. Devaraj, R. P. PS, and K. Subramani, " Detection of soiling on PV module using deep learning," Int. J. Electr. Electron. Eng. , vol. 10, pp. 93–101, 2023

work page 2023

[7] [6]

PV module soiling detec tion using visible spectrum imaging and machine learning,

B. I. Evstatiev, D. T. Trifonov, K. G. Gabrovska-Ev statieva, N. P. Valov, and N. P. Mihailov, "PV module soiling detec tion using visible spectrum imaging and machine learning," Energies , vol. 17, no. 20, 2024

work page 2024

[8] [7]

Automatic soiling and partial shading asse ssment on PV modules through RGB images analysis,

R. Cavieres, R. Barraza, D. Estay, J. Bilbao, and P . Valdivia- Lefort, "Automatic soiling and partial shading asse ssment on PV modules through RGB images analysis," Appl. Energy , vol. 306, p. 117964, 2022

work page 2022