MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4290065771 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.00139

Deep Learning based Model Predictive Control for Compression Ignition Engines

2022· preprint· en· W4290065771 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Armin Norouzi, Saeid Shahpouri, David J. Gordon, Alexander Winkler, Eugen Nuss, Dirk Abel, Jakob Andert, Mahdi Shahbakhti, Charles Robert Koch

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAdvanced Combustion Engine Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAlberta InnovatesDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsModel predictive controlController (irrigation)Computer scienceReduction (mathematics)Artificial neural networkRecurrent neural networkControl theory (sociology)PID controllerFuel efficiencyArtificial intelligenceEngineeringAutomotive engineeringControl engineeringControl (management)Temperature controlMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machine learning (ML) and a nonlinear model predictive controller (NMPC) are used in this paper to minimize the emissions and fuel consumption of a compression ignition engine. In this work machine learning is applied in two methods. In the first application, ML is used to identify a model for implementation in model predictive control optimization problems. In the second application, ML is used as a replacement of the NMPC where the ML controller learns the optimal control action by imitating or mimicking the behavior of the model predictive controller. In this study, a deep recurrent neural network including long-short term memory (LSTM) layers are used to model the emissions and performance of an industrial 4.5 liter 4-cylinder Cummins diesel engine. This model is then used for model predictive controller implementation. Then, a deep learning scheme is deployed to clone the behavior of the developed controller. In the LSTM integration, a novel scheme is used by augmenting hidden and cell states of the network in an NMPC optimization problem. The developed LSTM-NMPC and the imitative NMPC are compared with the Cummins calibrated Engine Control Unit (ECU) model in an experimentally validated engine simulation platform. Results show a significant reduction in Nitrogen Oxides (\nox) emissions and a slight decrease in the injected fuel quantity while maintaining the same load. In addition, the imitative NMPC has a similar performance as the NMPC but with a two orders of magnitude reduction of the computation time.

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 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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.148 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicAdvanced Combustion Engine TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207