MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164616507 · doi:10.1109/tmag.2008.2002779

Sequential Optimization Method for the Design of Electromagnetic Device

2008· article· en· W2164616507 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Magnetics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayesian optimizationComputer scienceTest functions for optimizationKrigingMathematical optimizationSequential analysisProcess (computing)Optimization problemContinuous optimizationFinite element methodDesign of experimentsAlgorithmOptimal designMulti-swarm optimizationMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three sequential optimization methods, sequential least square method, sequential Kriging method, and sequential linear Bayesian method, are presented for the optimization design of electromagnetic device. Sequential optimization method (SOM) is composed of coarse optimization process and fine optimization process. The main purpose of the former is to reduce the design space; while the target of the latter is to update the optimal design parameters. To illustrate the performance of the proposed methods, an analytic test function and the TEAM Workshop Problem 22 are investigated. Experimental results of test function demonstrate that SOM can obtain satisfactory solutions; and practical application illustrates that the number of finite element sample points is less than 1/10 compared with that by direct optimization method, while the optimal results are even better than that by direct optimization method.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.604

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it