MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2539483526 · doi:10.1109/iecon.2006.347993

Pulse Density Modulation Pattern Optimization using Genetic Algorithms

2006· article· en· W2539483526 on OpenAlexaff
Demian Pimentel, A. Chériti, Mohamed Ben Slima, Pierre Sicard

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInduction Heating and Inverter Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTotal harmonic distortionConvertersPower factorPulse-width modulationPower (physics)Electronic engineeringPower densityVoltageDistortion (music)Modulation (music)Control theory (sociology)Pulse-density modulationComputer scienceEngineeringElectrical engineeringPulse (music)PhysicsPulse-amplitude modulationAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pulse density modulation (PDM) can be used to drive resonant power converters and is an alternative to pulse width modulation (PWM). Its main advantage is simplicity, which allows a power device to achieve zero-current (or voltage) switching while performing load power regulation. Reduced switching stress hinders a converter from polluting power lines with electromagnetic noise. This technique is suitable for designing power converters that show a good overall power factor and low total harmonic distortion (THD). PDM can be used to drive resonant (series or parallel) power converters. These converters are frequently used in induction heating applications where they are required to operate at high frequencies and deliver a wide range of output powers. Conveniently, the power factor produced by PDM converters is near unity and THD is low at high-output powers. However, at low-output powers, THD increases and the power factor gets far away from unity. This paper presents a technique that makes it possible to obtain optimal PDM patterns. Simulations are used to show that intelligent PDM pattern generation using genetic algorithms allows for an improved power factor and a reduced THD at low-output powers. A comparison with other PDM pattern generation techniques shows that AG patterns demonstrate a much better performance

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.189 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics SocietySame topicInduction Heating and Inverter TechnologyFrench-language works237,207