Review of Machine Learning Applications to the Modeling and Design Optimization of Switched Reluctance Motors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work presents a comprehensive review of the developments in using Machine Learning (ML)-based algorithms for the modeling and design optimization of switched reluctance motors (SRMs). We reviewed Machine Learning-based numerical and analytical approaches used in modeling SRMs. We showed the difference between the supervised, unsupervised and reinforcement learning algorithms. More focus is placed on supervised learning algorithms as they are the most used algorithms in this area. The supervised learning algorithms studied in this work include the feedforward neural networks, recurrent neural networks, support vector machines, extreme learning machines, and Bayesian networks. This work also discusses several essential aspects of the considered machine learning algorithms, such as core concept, structure, and computational time. It also surveys sample data acquisition methods and data size. Finally, comparisons between the different considered ML-based algorithms are conducted in terms of electric motor type, dataset inputs and outputs, and algorithm’s structure and accuracy to provide a summary overview of the ML-based algorithms for SRMs modeling and 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it