MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2591794604 · doi:10.1109/icpre.2016.7871132

Dynamic optimization method for speed ratio of electric vehicle with two-speed transmission system

2016· article· en· W2591794604 on OpenAlexaff
Ye Shanding, Qiang Song, Saeid Habibi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric and Hybrid Vehicle Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransmission (telecommunications)Transmission systemComputer scienceContinuously variable transmissionMATLABCorrectnessGear ratioAutomotive engineeringEngineeringAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently, most of speed ratio optimizing methods for automotive transmission system belong to static optimization , while values of transmission ratio in the whole optimization process of velocity ratio are changing constantly. In order to obtain the best economic performance for the vehicle, corresponding gear- shift schedules should be adopted to different speed ratio. The paper has put forward a dynamic optimization method for speed ratio of the transmission system through analyzing deficiencies of static optimization method for speed ratio of transmission system. The method takes speed ratio of transmission system as design variable, and establishes objective function which considered lightweight design principles of transmission system. With ISIGHT-MATLAB/Simulink co-simulation optimization software platform and shift point judgment rules, it implementes dynamic optimization of speed ratio for transmission system, and has conducted comparative analysis on optimizing results simulated with static optimization method for speed ratio of transmission system. Ultimate optimizing results have indicated the correctness of the dynamic optimization for velocity ratio put forward in the paper as well as the correctness of considering lightweight design principle for the transmission system put forward in the paper.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectric and Hybrid Vehicle TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207