The application of artificial intelligence and machine learning in the design process for electromagnetic devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Designing an electromagnetic device, as with many other devices, is an inverse problem. The issue is that the performance and some constraints on the inputs are provided but the solution to the design problem is non-unique. Additionally, conventionally, at the start of the design process, the information on potential solutions needs to be generated quickly so that a designer can make effective decisions before moving on to detailed performance analysis, but the amount of information that can be obtained from simple analysis tools is limited. Machine learning may be able to assist by increasing the amount of information available at the early stages of the design process. This is not a new concept, in fact it has been considered for several decades but has always been limited by the computational power available. Recent advances in machine learning might allow for the creation of a more effective “sizing” stage of the design process, thus reducing the cost of generating a final design. The goal of this paper is to review some of the work in applying artificial intelligence to the design and analysis of electromagnetic devices and to discuss what might be possible by considering some examples of the use of machine learning in several tools used in conventional design, which have been considered over the past three decades.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".