Radial basis function‐based Pareto optimization of an outer rotor brushless <scp>DC</scp> motor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper presents the development of an optimization and modeling method for the objective functions of output power, efficiency and weight of an outer rotor permanent magnet brushless DC (BLDC) motor based on radial basis function (RBF) approximation technique. The proposed RBF‐based Pareto optimization method requires less knowledge about electric/magnetic formulas and can replace conventional optimizations based on these equations with higher accuracy. To apply the proposed optimization method, the initial design should be developed using such equations. Therefore, RBFs are used to model and predict engine behavior. To optimize the objective functions, we used a genetic algorithm optimization technique with nonlinear electric and magnetic constraints to find the Pareto front set. The design obtained by the proposed radial basis function Pareto optimization (RBFPO) method was finally verified by Ansoft Maxwell. The results of optimal design using the RBFPO method have higher output power and efficiency. Also, in addition to the advantage of a favorable accuracy, RBF‐based models are significantly faster than models available in simulation tools.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".