MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2279039134 · doi:10.1109/tmag.2015.2491306

A Computationally Efficient Algorithm for Rotor Design Optimization of Synchronous Reluctance Machines

2015· article· en· W2279039134 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammad Hossain Mohammadi, Tanvir Rahman, Rodrigo Silva, M. Li, David A. Lowther

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Magnetics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceTorque rippleAlgorithmTorqueArtificial neural networkFinite element methodMulti-objective optimizationMagnetic reluctanceControl theory (sociology)Rotor (electric)Mathematical optimizationMathematicsDirect torque controlMagnetArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A generalizable algorithm is proposed for the design optimization of synchronous reluctance machine rotors. Single-barrier models are considered to reduce the algorithm's computational complexity and provide a relative comparison for rotors with different slots-per-pole combinations. Two objective values per sampled design (average and ripple torques) are computed using 2-D finite-element analysis simulations. Non-linear regression or surrogate models are trained for the two objectives through a Bayesian regularization backpropagation neural network. A multi-objective genetic algorithm is used to find the validated Pareto front solutions. An analytical ellipse constraint is then suggested to encapsulate optimal solutions. Compared with a direct sampling approach, this restriction captures an optimal region within the double-barrier space for further torque ripple reduction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on MagneticsSame topicElectric Motor Design and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207