MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7084899259 · doi:10.1109/tmag.2025.3618865

SAS-PINN: An Enhanced Physics-Informed Neural Network for 2-D Time-Domain Electromagnetic Field Computation of Power Transformer

2025· article· en· W7084899259 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Magnetics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaPowertech Labs (Canada)
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsElectromagnetic fieldArtificial neural networkComputationAdaptive samplingTransformerMultiphysicsComputational electromagneticsSampling (signal processing)Near and far field

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, an enhanced physics-informed neural network (PINN) framework is proposed for accurate time-domain electromagnetic field computation in power transformers. To address the numerical stiffness and convergence challenges arising from steep field gradients between ferromagnetic cores, dielectric materials, and multi-layer windings, the high-frequency representation capability of the SIREN network architecture is leveraged. A novel adaptive collocation point sampling strategy is developed to dynamically refine spatial-temporal sampling resolution in high-gradient regions, effectively balancing numerical accuracy with computational efficiency. The proposed framework rigorously embeds Maxwell’s equations and composite boundary conditions into the loss formulation, establishing a surrogate model for 2D electromagnetic field computation. Numerical results demonstrate a two-order-of-magnitude reduction in prediction error compared to vanilla PINNs with random sampling strategy. This breakthrough enables efficient simulation of time-domain multi-physics fields in complex electromagnetic devices featuring intricate geometries and multi-material interfaces.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score0.908

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on MagneticsSame topicCell Image Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207