MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906440667 · doi:10.1504/ijhvs.2019.097108

On robust controllers for active steering systems of articulated heavy vehicles

2018· article· en· W2906440667 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Heavy Vehicle Systems · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Dynamics and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEngineeringAutomotive engineeringActive steeringActive safetyVehicle safetyArticulated vehicleControl engineeringAeronauticsComputer scienceControl (management)TruckArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the robustness of different controllers for active steering systems (ASSs) of articulated heavy vehicles (AHVs) in terms of the directional performance. Controllers based on the linear quadratic regulator (LQR) technique were designed for ASSs. The success of the LQR-based controllers is dependent on the accuracy of linear models for AHVs. When designing ASS controllers, linearisation of the AHV models is usually necessary; this results in model inaccuracy and un-modelled dynamics, and the robustness of the LQR-based controllers may be degraded. ASSs for AHVs are assessed in the time-domain, which may lead to an incomplete performance evaluation. This paper assesses the robustness of the ASS controllers designed with the techniques of sliding mode control (SMC), nonlinear sliding mode control (NSMC), and mu-synthesis (MS). The ASS controllers are evaluated using numerical simulation in terms of the trade-off between the manoeuvrability and the lateral stability at high speeds.

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.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.901

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.221 · 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