Comparing Driving Cycle Development Methods Based on Markov Chains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The transportation sector is a major contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, accounting for 14% of global emissions in 2010 according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency. In Quebec, this share amounts to 43%, of which 80% is caused by road transport according to the MinistÉre de l’Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques of QuÅbec. It is therefore essential to support the actions taken to reduce GHGs emissions from this sector and to quantify the impact of these actions. To do so, accurate and reliable emission models are needed. Driving cycles are defined as speed profiles over time and they are a key element of emission models. They represent driving behaviors specific to various road types in each region. The most widely used method to construct driving cycles is based on Markov chains and consists of concatenating small sections of speed profiles, called microtrips, following a transition matrix. Two of the main steps involved in the development of driving cycles are microtrip segmentation and microtrip classification. In this study, several combinations of segmentation and clustering methods are compared to generate the most reliable driving cycle. Results show that segmentation of microtrips with a fixed distance of 250 m and clustering of the microtrips by applying a principal component analysis on many key parameters related to their speed and acceleration provide the most accurate driving cycles.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".