MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921361531 · doi:10.1115/1.2019-mar-5

Model-Guided Data-Driven Optimization for Automotive Compression Ignition Engine Systems

2019· article· en· W2921361531 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueMechanical Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAdvanced Combustion Engine Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomotive industryRange (aeronautics)Computer scienceAutomotive engineCalibrationSystem dynamicsOptimization problemIgnition systemControl engineeringEngineeringAutomotive engineeringAlgorithmArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Essentially, the performance improvement of automotive systems is a multi-objective optimization problem [1–4] due to the challenges in both operation management and control. The interconnected dynamics inside the automotive system normally requires precise tuning and coordination of accessible system inputs. In the past, such optimization problems have been approximately solved through expensive calibration procedures or an off-line local model-based approaches where either a regressive model or a first-principle model is used. The model-based optimization provides the advantage of finding the optimal model parameters to allow the model to be used to predict the real system behavior reasonably [5]. However, other than the model complexities, there are practically two issues facing the integrity of these models: modeling uncertainty due to inaccurate parameter values and/or unmodeled dynamics, and locally effective range around operating points. As a result, the optimum solutions extracted from the model-based approach could be subject to failure of expected performance [6].

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.711
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.225 · 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