Multi-Objective Optimization of Multi-Level DC–DC Converters Using Geometric Programming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi-objective optimization of power converters is a time-consuming task, especially when multiple operating points and multiple converter topologies must be considered. As a result, various steps are often taken to simplify the design problem and restrict the size of the design space prior to going through an optimization procedure. While this saves time, it produces potentially sub-optimal designs, and existing approaches must tradeoff between running time and design optimality. This paper presents an optimization-oriented method for modeling power converters and their components as posynomial functions, allowing multi-objective optimization of converters to be formulated as a geometric program, a type of convex optimization problem. This allows the use of fast, powerful solvers that guarantee global optimality of solutions. The method is demonstrated using the example of low-power multi-level flying capacitor step-down converters. Results show that, using geometric programming, sets of globally Pareto-optimal designs of two-, three-, and four-level converters with respect to efficiency and power density, for one design space and one operating point, can be generated in as little as 25 s, on a mid- to upper range laptop computer. Thus, optimal designs for three different converter topologies for hundreds of different operating points and/or design spaces can be generated in several hours-less than the time required to globally optimize one converter topology at one operating point for one design space using currently prevalent methods. This paper also demonstrates how geometric programming can be used to quickly perform sensitivity and tradeoff analysis of optimal converter designs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".