MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408048039 · doi:10.1109/tvt.2025.3546717

Transfer of Reinforcement Learning-Based Powertrain Controllers From Model- to Hardware-in-the-Loop

2025· article· en· W4408048039 on OpenAlexaff
Mario Picerno, Lucas Koch, Kevin Badalian, Marius Wegener, Joschka Schaub, Charles Robert Koch, Jakob Andert

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReal-time simulation and control systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersBundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Klimaschutz
KeywordsPowertrainControl engineeringReinforcement learningTransfer functionComputer scienceLoop (graph theory)EngineeringHardware-in-the-loop simulationArtificial intelligenceElectrical engineeringTorquePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developing powertrain control functions is time-consuming and resource-intensive, often leading to sub-optimal solutions. Reinforcement Learning (RL) allows agents to perform complex control tasks with minimal human involvement, but is often confined to simulations due to testing costs and safety concerns. To effectively apply RL in embedded powertrain control, agents must be able to handle real-world scenarios, particularly through direct interaction with real actuators and control systems. Therefore, this research applies Transfer Learning (TL) and X-in-the-Loop (XiL) simulations to develop agents that can seamlessly transition and perform robustly in real-world environments. For transient exhaust gas re-circulation control of an internal combustion engine, the process begins with a computationally inexpensive Model-in-the-Loop (MiL) simulation to select a suitable algorithm, fine-tune hyperparameters, and conduct preliminary training. In the next step, pre-trained agents are transferred to an advanced Hardware-in-the-Loop (HiL) system with real hardware using TL for further training. Compared to agents trained entirely on HiL systems, transferred agents required significantly less real-world training time (up to <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$5.9$</tex-math></inline-formula> times shorter) while outperforming the series production Engine Control Unit (ECU). The results highlight that for real-world effectiveness, integrating actual hardware into training is essential, reward fine-tuning plays a critical role in optimizing these interactions, and the maturity of the policy significantly influences both training duration and overall performance.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.688

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.215 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Vehicular TechnologySame topicReal-time simulation and control systemsFrench-language works237,207