Paper Plan
Paper Plan
Produced on 29 October 2026 by following core/workflows/idea-to-paper.md and core/policies/scientific-integrity.md of AIPE-IEEE-Paper-Agent (commit 5192c62), with Claude Code as the host agent. Evidence is the executed AIPE-Workflows reference run examples/dab-10kw (commit 6284f18); every number below is copied from that record. Nothing has been drafted as manuscript prose, and no reference has been added.
Working Title
Agent-Coordinated Design of a 10 kW SiC Dual-Active-Bridge Converter
Target Venue
IEEE Open Journal of Power Electronics (ieee-ojpel): a full-length, two-column power-electronics journal suited to a design-methodology paper. Current length limits must be confirmed before drafting.
Manuscript Workspace
Paper slug: dab-10kw-aipe
Template family: journal, ieeeojpel class, initialised with scripts/create-manuscript.py dab-10kw-aipe --venue ieee-ojpel --domain power-electronics
Overleaf / local LaTeX notes: upload with main.tex as the main document; not compiled yet.
Research Spine
Problem: early-stage power-converter design spans electrical, magnetic, thermal, field, mechanical and PCB tools, and the data between them is usually passed by hand.
Gap: to be established by a literature review with verified citations (none added yet). The working hypothesis is that design-automation studies typically cover one or two domains, and agent-based approaches rarely record which results are computed, simulated or measured.
Idea: specialist agents exchange a shared Engineering State with provenance, run as a checkpointed task graph with verification gates, and feed downstream results back into upstream models through explicit iterations.
Evidence: the executed 10 kW DAB reference run (800 V to 400 V, 100 kHz; 14 tasks, 12 Engineering State versions), its two recorded feedback iterations and its clean-checkout reproduction.
Impact: a reproducible, auditable multi-domain design record that shows where solver results confirm analytical estimates and where engineering review and measurement are still required.
Research Questions
- Does the coordinated chain reproduce the analytical operating point in switching simulation?
- How closely do the fast analytical sizing models agree with solver-backed field and CAD results?
- Do downstream results, fed back through explicit iterations, change upstream design quantities?
- Is the complete run reproducible from a clean checkout?
Contributions
- We develop a multi-agent design architecture in which specialist agents share an Engineering State with provenance and pass verification gates that keep computed, simulated and measured evidence distinct.
- We implement and quantify cross-domain feedback, in which magnetics and finite-element parameters are reconciled back into the circuit model, on a 10 kW SiC DAB.
- We report an end-to-end design run from specification to CAD and PCB that reproduces from a clean checkout, with failed and unrun gates recorded explicitly.
Paper Outline
- Abstract: written last, from the evidence that exists.
- Introduction: problem, gap (with verified citations), contributions.
- Related Work: converter design optimisation, design automation, tool-using and multi-agent AI systems.
- Method: agents, Engineering State, task graph, gates, iterate and reconcile operations.
- Case Study Setup: DAB specification, tools and versions, run environment.
- Results: analytical versus simulated operating point; analytical versus FEM and CAD; feedback iterations; reproduction.
- Limitations: unfinished PCB routing, no Level 3 manufacturer models, correlation film coefficients, no measurement.
- Conclusion.
Figure and Table Plan
| Item | Content | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Fig. 1 | Agent architecture and coordination layer | redraw from the AIPE framework diagram |
| Fig. 2 | DAB task graph with verification gates | results/plan.json, results/verification.json |
| Fig. 3 | Level 1 switching waveforms | results/figures/circuit-sim-level1-figure-overview.png |
| Fig. 4 | Transformer-window and heat-sink FEM fields | results/figures/fem-transformer-window-B_leakage.png, fem-heatsink-base_bottom_temperature.png |
| Table I | Specification and tool versions | specification.yaml, environment-manifest.json |
| Table II | Analytical versus Level 1 operating point | README, Level 1 table |
| Table III | Analytical versus FEM and CAD | README, window FEM, heat-sink FEM, CAD tables |
| Table IV | Feedback iterations A and D | results/iteration-example-a/, results/iteration-reconcile-it03/ |
| Table V | Gate status, including cad_pcb fail and unrun gates | results/verification.json |
Evidence Needed
| Gap | Priority | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Literature review and verified citations for the gap statement | blocking | no reference added; the gap is a hypothesis until cited |
| Baseline for claims about effort, consistency or error compared with a conventional flow | blocking | none exists; without it, claims are limited to what the run shows |
| Hardware measurements for any efficiency or temperature claim | blocking for those claims | the ledger keeps experimental and hardware_qualification at not_run; frame the paper as design methodology with simulation evidence |
| Finished PCB routing | important | cad_pcb gate fails: 26 / 23 / 24 unconnected items on the three boards |
| Level 3 manufacturer SPICE model run | important | Level 2 uses a behavioural switch model |
| Engineering review of transformer insulation and heat-sink bushing path | important | recorded as CAD review items |
| CFD for the film coefficients | optional | thermal and FEM use correlation inputs |
Recommended Template
ieee-ojpel, already initialised in manuscripts/dab-10kw-aipe.
Next Actions
- Run a literature search and verify every citation against its source before drafting the introduction.
- Decide whether to define a baseline comparison or narrow the claims to the reported run.
- Draft Method, Case Study Setup and Results against Tables II to V; leave the abstract and introduction until those exist.
- Compile
main.tex, inspect the PDF and run the publication-readiness review.