Determining Model Accuracy Requirements for Automotive Engine Coldstart Hydrocarbon Emissions Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, a systematic method is introduced to determine the required accuracy of an automotive engine model used for real-time optimal control of coldstart hydrocarbon (HC) emissions. The engine model structure and development are briefly explained and the model predictions versus experimental results are presented. The control design problem is represented with a dynamic optimization formulation on the basis of the engine model and solved using the Pontryagin’s minimum principle (PMP). To relate the level of plant/model mismatch and the control performance degradation in practice, a sensitivity analysis using a computationally efficient method is employed. In this way, the sensitivities or the effects of small parameter variations on the optimal solution, which is the minimum of cumulative tailpipe HC emissions over the coldstart period, are calculated. There is a good agreement between the sensitivity analysis results and the experimental data. The sensitivities indicate the directions of the subsequent parameter estimation and model improvement tasks to enhance the control-relevant accuracy, and thus, the control performance. Furthermore, they provide some insights to simplify the engine model, which is critical for real-time implementation of the coldstart optimal control system.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".