Weighting Method to Identify Interharmonics based on Calculating the Bandwidth in Group-Harmonics
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
Power converters produce a vast range of harmonics, subharmonics and interharmonics. Harmonics analyzing tools based on the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) assume that only harmonics are present and the periodicity intervals are fixed, while these periodicity intervals are variable and long in the presence of interharmonics. Using FFT may lead to invalid and undesired results due to the above mentioned issues. They can also lead to problems such as frequency blending, spectral leakage and the picket-fence effect. In this paper, the group-harmonic weighting (GHW) approach has been presented to identify the interharmonics in a power system. Afterwards, a modified GHW has been introduced to calculate the proper bandwidth for analyzing the various values of interharmonics. Modifying this method leads to more precise results in the FFT of a waveform containing inter harmonics especially in power systems with a fundamental frequency drift or frequency interference. Numerical simulations have been performed to prove the efficiency of the presented algorithm in interharmonics detection and to increase the accuracy of the FFT and the GWH methods.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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