MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003037204 · doi:10.4271/2020-01-0266

An Iterative Histogram-Based Optimization of Calibration Tables in a Powertrain Controller

2020· article· en· W3003037204 on OpenAlexaff
Lucas Bruck, Saeed Amirfarhangi Bonab, Adam Lempert, Atriya Biswas, Pier Giuseppe Anselma, Joel Roeleveld, Omkar Rane, Krishna Madireddy, Bryon Wasacz, Giovanni Belingardi, Ali Emadi

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReal-time simulation and control systems
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalibrationComputer scienceController (irrigation)HistogramIterative methodPowertrainControl theory (sociology)AlgorithmMathematicsArtificial intelligenceControl (management)TorqueImage (mathematics)Statistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To comply with the stringent fuel consumption requirements, many automobile manufacturers have launched vehicle electrification programs which are representing a paradigm shift in vehicle design. Looking specifically at powertrain calibration, optimization approaches were developed to help the decision-making process in the powertrain control. Due to computational power limitations the most common approach is still the use of powertrain calibration tables in a rule-based controller. This is true despite the fact that the most common manual tuning can be quite long and exhausting, and with the optimal consumption behavior rarely being achieved. The present work proposes a simulation tool that has the objective to automate the process of tuning a calibration table in a powertrain model. To achieve that, it is first necessary to define the optimal reference performance. The calibration table then has its values optimized by the Genetic Algorithm to a single value that better matches the reference performance. A novel Iterative Histogram procedure is then used to identify which cells from the new table have the greatest contribution to the performance mismatch between the model and the reference. These values are optimized and the histogram is reassessed. This process is repeated until the mismatch target is achieved or the model results show saturation in its performance. The iterative nature of this process results in a powerful tool that gives its users the ability to easily conduct a simulation while simultaneously monitoring the results of each iteration until the target is met.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicReal-time simulation and control systemsFrench-language works237,207