MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390017967 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2023.12.006

Integration of optimal engine and driveline controllers to minimize driveline clunk and shuffle

2023· article· en· W4390017967 on OpenAlexaff
Prithvi Reddy, Xin Wang, Mahdi Shahbakhti, Jeffrey Naber, Maruthi Ravichandran, Jeff Doering

Bibliographic record

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAdvanced Combustion Engine Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPowertrainComputer scienceControl engineeringAutomotive industryController (irrigation)Automotive engineTorqueOptimal controlControl (management)Control theory (sociology)Automotive engineeringEngineeringArtificial intelligenceMathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automotive control algorithms have been moving from traditional, rule-based control algorithms to optimal, model-based control algorithms. While the model-based algorithms have shown to provide better control performance over a wide range of use cases with reduced calibration efforts, it is challenging to integrate multiple model-based controllers that are developed independently to address different control objectives. In this work, a nonlinear model predictive engine controller designed for torque tracking is integrated with a reference governor-based driveline controller designed to reduce vehicle drivability problems known as clunk and shuffle. The design of both controllers is discussed and their individual performance is demonstrated for real-world test conditions and realistic driving scenarios. Then, the integration between the two optimal controllers is discussed and a proof of concept use case showing the coordinated control between the two optimal controllers is presented. The results illustrate that without coordination between the two controllers neither of them are able to meet their original control objectives.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIFAC-PapersOnLineSame topicAdvanced Combustion Engine TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207