Soft‐computing techniques for cruise controller tuning for an off‐road electric vehicle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Speed controllers may be employed to provide safer along with more secure vehicles. They may also be used to minimise environmental pollution, e.g. speed controllers can be employed to track speed optimal velocity profile based on energy consumption minimisation. Consequently, accurate speed tracking is important. However, despite soft‐computing techniques have been proved successful in controller tuning, there is a limited amount of research on these techniques applied to speed controller optimisation. Therefore, this study performs a comparison study on PI cruise controller tuning for an off‐road electric vehicle. A cost function is designed to reach an accurate EV speed tracking while considering safety aspects, such as no reverse speed. The ACO‐NM algorithm has been demonstrated to be the most efficient compared to GA, ALO, DE, and PSO. Indeed, ACO‐NM reached high‐quality solutions for lower computational cost for three driving cycles. Moreover, contrary to the majority of published work on the subject, experimental validations have been carried out with the optimised PI cruise controllers. The experimental results have validated the ACO‐NM efficiency with a maximum overshoot average <10% for the hardest acceleration of the real driving cycle.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".