MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162057625 · doi:10.1109/tmag.2021.3070486

Surrogate Models for Design and Optimization of Inverter-Fed Synchronous Motor Drives

2021· article· en· W3162057625 on OpenAlexafffund
Issah Ibrahim, Rodrigo Silva, Mohammad Hossain Mohammadi, Vahid Ghorbanian, David A. Lowther

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Magnetics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Motor Design and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStatorInverterComputer sciencePulse-width modulationSurrogate modelSynchronous motorBottleneckAC motorEngineering design processControl theory (sociology)MagnetProcess (computing)Electric motorVoltageElectrical engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineeringArtificial intelligenceEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Design and optimization problems typically require running thousands of motor simulations which can take several hours, if not days. To overcome this bottleneck, surrogate models are often used in engineering design to expedite the process. When inverter-fed motor drives are involved, the cost of generating a finite element (FE) database from a pulsewidth modulated (PWM) current simulations to fit such models can be prohibitive. This article compares an ensemble of surrogate models of synchronous motors generated with sinusoidal and PWM stator excitations, in terms of computational burden and performance. The main contribution resides in showing whether computational resources can be saved with sinusoidal excitation models without compromising the optimization results of a real inverter-fed permanent magnet synchronous motor design.

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 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.736
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.187 · 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.

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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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