MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997381488 · doi:10.4271/2011-01-0710

Estimation of Individual Cylinder Fuel Air Ratios from a Switching or Wide Range Oxygen Sensor for Engine Control and On-Board Diagnosis

2011· article· en· W1997381488 on OpenAlexaff
Zhijian James Wu, Bryon Wasacz

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE International Journal of Engines · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAdvanced Combustion Engine Technologies
Canadian institutionsChrysler (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOxygen sensorRange (aeronautics)CylinderAutomotive engineeringAir–fuel ratioEnvironmental scienceFuel injectionMaterials scienceOxygenMechanical engineeringEngineeringInternal combustion engineComposite materialChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fuel air ratio imbalance between individual cylinders can result in poor fuel economy and severe exhaust emissions. Individual cylinder fuel air ratio control is one of the important techniques used to improve fuel economy and reduce exhaust emission. California Air Resources Board (CARB) also has required automotive manufacturers to equip with on-board diagnosis system for cylinder fuel air ratio imbalance detection starting in 2011. However, one of the most challenging tasks for the individual cylinder fuel air ratio control and cylinder imbalance diagnosis is how to retrieve the cylinder fuel air ratio information effectively at low cost. This paper presents a novel and practical signal processing based fuel air ratio estimation method for individual cylinder fuel air ratio balance control and on-board fuel air ratio imbalance diagnosis. Based on temporal array signal processing techniques, an array of data samples from an oxygen sensor located in a confluence point of runners is fed into each cylinder's linear, non-linear, or neural network estimator to estimate its fuel air ratio. This method works with both wide range oxygen sensors and switching oxygen sensors. This paper presents in more detail the linear estimation method and the vehicle test results due to its advantages of good performance, low computational load, and easily automated calibration for production.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE International Journal of EnginesSame topicAdvanced Combustion Engine TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207