An effective identification of the induction machine parameters using a classic genetic algorithm, NSGA II and θ-NSGA III
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To remain competitive, the manufacturing industry is using computer processing power to innovate, develop and optimize new cost-efficient production strategies. This is the reason why optimization of automation systems is deployed to improve productivity, quality and robustness of the production. The different existing goals of optimization as the control machine, management of the power consumption, design of electrical installation and prediction of motor faults lead to the necessity of estimating the induction machine parameters (the stator and rotor resistances, the stator and rotor inductances and the magnetizing inductance). To these ends, researchers and companies are investigating efficient methods to identify these parameters. In this paper, we propose an effective method for the induction machine parameters identification based on the new θ-NSGA III genetic algorithm. A comparison between a classic single objective genetic algorithm (GA) and two well-known multi-objectives GAs (NSGA II and θ-NSGA III) is performed. Our results show that the multi-objective GA θ-NSGA III provides a better estimation of parameters than the classic single objective GA and the multi-objective GA NSGA II.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".