Reconfigurable Model Predictive Control for Articulated Vehicle Stability With Experimental Validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article proposed a reconfigurable control scheme for articulated vehicles' stabilization by leveraging optimization-based control techniques. The central objective is to maintain a good lateral and yaw stability of the vehicle with optimal corrective brakes, meanwhile applicable to different actuation configurations. This is achieved by a two-layer control structure, where the high-level controller formulates as a model predictive control (MPC) tracking problem to generate corrective center-of-gravity (CG) yaw moment of each unit. The lower level controller utilizes the control allocation (CA) algorithm with real-time constraints to optimally calculate differential brakes at each wheel with maximum utilization-of-tires capacity. To evaluate its real-time performance, experimental validation is carried out on the electrified tractor-trailer with selective differential braking systems. It is observed that the controller is effective in dynamics control, meanwhile reconfigurable to various actuation configurations. Furthermore, the proposed system has great potential in production tractor-trailer systems due to the low cost and number of sensor requisites.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".