MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Surrogate-Based Modeling of Induction Machines to Reduce the Computational Burden of Robust Multi-Objective Optimization

2023· article· en· W4387251127 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurrogate modelComputer scienceBottleneckMulti-objective optimizationProcess (computing)Robust optimizationOptimization problemMathematical optimizationEngineering optimizationMachine learningAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the main obstacles to robust design optimization of Induction Machines (IM) is the high computational burden, which is mainly due to time-intensive nonlinear finite element (FE) simulations. The large multivariable design space of electric machine optimization typically requires running thousands of simulations taking many hours, if not days which is quite prohibitive. To overcome this bottleneck, hybridization of FE-based optimization with approximate models can lead to expedite the process. This paper is focused on accelerating the typical FE-based optimization scenarios by implementing and systematically studying an ensemble of surrogate models of IMs in terms of computational burden and performance. In this regard, after adopting the most significant surrogate model, a multi-points sequential sampling process with a two-step surrogate-based optimization approach is developed. Compared with direct FE-based robust optimization, competitive results are achieved by adopting the proposed hybrid surrogate-based approach and the overall runtime is reduced by 69%. Furthermore, as a case study, an optimization problem for an 11-kW IM is considered by applying the typical FE-based optimization task followed by the proposed hybrid technique. Hence, the achievable speed improvements, as well as further possible enhancing means are discussed. The detailed comparison of the presented surrogate models makes a comprehensive source for engineers and designers to follow.

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 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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.333
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.254 · 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