ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Evaluating Convolutional and Transformer Architectures for Photovoltaic Defect Classification via Electroluminescence Imagery.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Benchmarking Modern Deep Learning Models for Electroluminescence-Based Solar Cell Defect Detection.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Electroluminescence (EL) imaging is widely used for photovoltaic (PV) defect inspection, yet fair comparison of deep learning backbones remains difficult because datasets, labels, and protocols vary across studies. This work presents a controlled image-level benchmark of six architectures (ConvNeXt-T, ViT-B/16, DeiT-B/16, Swin-T, DenseNet121, and MobileNetV3-Large) across five hierarchical tasks for monocrystalline and polycrystalline cells with binary and multi-class labels. A balanced proprietary dataset of 20,000 single-cell EL images was evaluated with identical preprocessing, augmentation, training, and stratified five-fold cross-validation, yielding 150 runs. ConvNeXt-T achieved the highest mean macro-F1 (93.12%) while using about one-third of the parameters of base ViT/DeiT models. On the four-class polycrystalline task, it reached 84.94 ± 0.45% macro-F1, compared with 70.08 ± 1.19% for DenseNet121 and 59.43 ± 1.71% for MobileNetV3-Large. Error analysis revealed conservative missed-defect behavior in lightweight CNNs, especially for surface-level degradation and crack categories. The results provide image-level cross-validation evidence for controlled benchmarking and motivate future module-level grouped validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.