Monte Carlo Study of Jiles-Atherton Parameters on Hysteresis Area and Remnant Displacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the parameters of the Jiles-Atherton (JA) model are investigated to determine suitable solution candidates for hysteresis models of a piezoelectric actuator (PEA). The methodology of this study is to perform Monte Carlo experiments on the JA model by randomly selecting parameters that generate hysteresis curves. The solution space is then restrained such that their normalized area and remnant displacements are comparable to those of the PEA. The data resulting from these Monte Carlo simulations show trends in the parameter space that can be used to further restrain parameter selection windows to find suitable JA parameters to model PEAs. In particular, the results show that selection of the reversibility coefficient and the pinning factor strongly affect both of the hysteresis characteristics studied. A large density of solutions is found in certain parameter distributions for both the area and the remnant displacement, but the remnant displacement generates the densest distributions. These results can be used to more effectively find suitable hysteresis models for modeling purposes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".