A Comparative Analysis of Artificial Intelligence Techniques for Single Open-Circuit Fault Detection in a Packed E-Cell Inverter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, fault detection has played a crucial role in ensuring the safety and reliability of inverter operation. Switch failures are primarily classified into Open-Circuit (OC) and short-circuit faults. While OC failures have limited negative impacts, prolonged system operation under such conditions may lead to further malfunctions. This paper demonstrates the effectiveness of employing Artificial Intelligence (AI) approaches for detecting single OC faults in a Packed E-Cell (PEC) inverter. Two promising strategies are considered: Random Forest Decision Tree (RFDT) and Feed-Forward Neural Network (FFNN). A comprehensive literature review of various fault detection approaches is first conducted. The PEC inverter’s modulation scheme and the significance of OC fault detection are highlighted. Next, the proposed methodology is introduced, followed by an evaluation based on five performance metrics, including an in-depth comparative analysis. This paper focuses on improving the robustness of fault detection strategies in PEC inverters using MATLAB/Simulink software. Simulation results show that the RFDT classifier achieved the highest accuracy of 93%, the lowest log loss value of 0.56, the highest number of correctly predicted estimations among the total samples, and nearly perfect ROC and PR curves, demonstrating exceptionally high discriminative ability across all fault categories.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".