MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135231825 · doi:10.1109/tie.2021.3060668

Induction Machine Parameterization From Limited Transient Data Using Convex Optimization

2021· article· en· W3135231825 on OpenAlexaff
Ajay Pratap Yadav, Ramtin Madani, Navid Amiri, Juri Jatskevich, Ali Davoudi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCenter for Selective C-H Functionalization, National Science Foundation
KeywordsStatorTransient (computer programming)Benchmark (surveying)Control theory (sociology)Relaxation (psychology)Induction motorConic optimizationEstimation theoryRotor (electric)Regular polygonConvex optimizationVoltageComputer scienceMathematicsMathematical optimizationAlgorithmEngineeringConvex combinationArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article identifies the parameters of an induction machine using limited and nonintrusive observations of available input voltages, stator currents, and the rotor speed. Parameter extraction is formulated as a nonconvex estimation problem, which is then relaxed to a convex conic optimization problem. While the resulting relaxation could exhibit a satisfactory performance, there might be cases where the solution of convex relaxation fails to satisfy the dynamic equations of the machine. This is remedied through a local search approach initiated using the solution obtained from the relaxed problem. The proposed method is experimentally verified on a squirrel-cage induction machine with missing measured data. Using the measured signals as the benchmark, time-domain transients produced by the parameters estimated using the proposed method show almost 20% better match compared to time-domain transients produced by the parameters obtained via conventional testing.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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