A method to calculate hardware in the loop applications representativeness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">Nowadays, technology advances have been growing exponentially, creating many branches of possibilities for new products and ways to improve the ones that are already on the market. These new possibilities have been used in the automotive industry to increase efficiency, quality, robustness of their products and also to introduce several functionalities that were not possible before. As result, project complexity is also exponentially increasing. On this context, several tools, techniques and processes have been developed and used to guarantee the quality and robustness of their products, while minimizing development time in order to stay competitive at the market. Considering this context, the use of Hardware In The Loop systems (HIL) is increasing, due to its flexibility, reliability and representativeness that have been verified over time for verification and validation activities using Electronic Control Modules. However, usually the HIL setup quality evaluation is measured indirectly (for example model accuracy) or even just qualitatively. It is hard to define how representative is the HIL setup when compared with the final application. This representativeness depends on several aspects of the HIL, such as model accuracy, precision, signal reliability, technical specification of the elements that composes HIL equipment, as well as the nature of the tests that needs to be done. Thus, this paper presents some main concepts related to the representativeness and use them as a base to show a methodology to estimate the representativeness of a HIL application setup for validation and verification purposes. To illustrate this methodology, some test examples were used on powertrain HIL system.</div></div>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".