Novel Neural-Network-Based Fuel Consumption Prediction Models Considering Vehicular Jerk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conventional fuel consumption prediction (FCP) models using neural networks usually adopt driving parameters, such as speed and acceleration, as the training input, leading to a low prediction accuracy and a poor correlation between fuel consumption and driving behavior. To address this issue, the present study introduced jerk (an acceleration derivative) as an important variable in the training input of four selected neural networks: long short-term memory (LSTM), recurrent neural network (RNN), nonlinear auto-regressive model with exogenous inputs (NARX), and generalized regression neural network (GRNN). Furthermore, the root-mean-square error (RMSE), relative error (RE), and coefficient of determination (R2) were used to evaluate the prediction performance of each model. The results from the comparison experiment show that the LSTM model outperforms the other three models. Specifically, the four selected neural network models exhibited an improved accuracy in fuel consumption prediction after the jerk was added as a new variable to the training input. LSTM exhibited the greatest improvement under the high-speed expressway scenario, in which the RMSE decreased by 14.3%, the RE decreased by 28.3%, and the R2 increased by 9.7%.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".