ArticleBiomimetics (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Bio-Inspired PSO Optimization of Fuzzy Membership Boundaries and PI Gains for a 48 V Synchronous Boost Converter.
Article in Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
48 V bus modules must stay regulated under wide input-voltage swings and fast load transients. A proportional-integral (PI) controller and a fuzzy logic controller (FLC) are tuned by the same Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), a swarm metaheuristic modeled on bird-flock foraging, under an Integral of Time-weighted Absolute Error (ITAE) objective. The novelty is PSO-based membership-boundary optimization: the membership-function limits, analogues of biological decision thresholds, are shaped directly rather than only the scaling gains. A 153 W, 225 kHz synchronous boost converter is simulated with non-ideal parasitics. For input-voltage transitions the PSO-FLC shortens settling time by up to 70.5% (118 versus 400 ms), whereas the PSO-PI gives smaller peak deviation (26.2% versus 40.0%) and faster load-step recovery. Unconstrained, both controllers draw 58-62 A on the worst input-voltage step; a 10 A cycle-by-cycle limit removes these excursions. Under an identical budget and parameter count, boundary tuning attains 12.3% lower ITAE cost and roughly 40% shorter large-signal settling than scaling-gain tuning. Across ten runs the cost varies by under 1.5% of its mean, and the ranking holds at a realizable update rate (4.44 μs, zero-order hold) and under the current limit. The findings are simulation-only comparative design guidance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.