Comparison of MOBILE5a, MOBILE6, VT-MICRO, and CMEM models for estimating hot-stabilized light-duty gasoline vehicle emissions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper compares the MOBILE5a, MOBILE6, Virginia Tech microscopic energy and emission model (VT-Micro), and comprehensive modal emissions model (CMEM) models for estimating hot-stabilized, light-duty vehicle emissions. Specifically, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) laboratory fuel consumption and emission databases are used for model comparisons. The comparisons demonstrate that CMEM exhibits some abnormal behaviors when compared with the ORNL data, EPA data, and the VT-Micro model estimates. Specifically, carbon monoxide (CO) emissions exhibit abrupt changes at low speeds and high acceleration levels and constant emissions at negative acceleration levels. Furthermore, oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions exhibit abrupt drops at high engine loads. In addition, the study demonstrates that MOBILE5a emission estimates compare poorly with EPA field data, while MOBILE6 model estimates show consistency with EPA field data and VT-Micro model estimates over various driving cycles. The VT-Micro model appears to be accurate in estimating hot-stabilized, light-duty, normal vehicle tailpipe emissions. Specifically, the emission estimates of the VT-Micro and MOBILE6 models are consistent in trends with laboratory measurements. Furthermore, the VT-Micro and MOBILE6 models accurately capture emission increases for aggressive acceleration drive cycles in comparison with other drive cycles.Key words: transportation energy, transportation environmental impacts, VT-Micro Model, CMEM, MOBILE5, MOBILE6, fuel consumption models, emission models.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".