Mechatronic Design Evolution Using Bond Graphs and Hybrid Genetic Algorithm With Genetic Programming
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A typical mechatronic problem (modeling, identification, and design) entails finding the best system topology as well as the associated parameter values. The solution requires concurrent and integrated methodologies and tools based on the latest theories. The experience on natural evolution of an engineering system indicates that the system topology evolves at a much slower rate than the parametric values. This paper proposes a two-loop evolutionary tool, using a hybrid of genetic algorithm (GA) and genetic programming (GP) for design optimization of a mechatronic system. Specifically, GP is used for topology optimization, while GA is responsible for finding the elite solution within each topology proposed by GP. A memory feature is incorporated with the GP process to avoid the generation of repeated topologies, a common drawback of GP topology exploration. The synergic integration of GA with GP, along with the memory feature, provides a powerful search ability, which has been integrated with bond graphs (BG) for mechatronic model exploration. The software developed using this approach provides a unified tool for concurrent, integrated, and autonomous topological realization of a mechatronic problem. It finds the best solution (topology and parameters) starting from an abstract statement of the problem. It is able to carry out the process of system configuration realization, which is normally performed by human experts. The performance of the software tool is validated by applying it to mechatronic design problems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it