Hybrid Reinforcement Learning and Model Predictive Control for Adaptive Control of Hydrogen-Diesel Dual-Fuel Combustion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reinforcement Learning (RL) and Machine Learning Integrated Model Predictive Control (ML-MPC) are promising approaches for optimizing hydrogen-diesel dual-fuel engine control, as they can effectively control multiple-input multiple-output systems and nonlinear processes. ML-MPC is advantageous for providing safe and optimal controls, ensuring the engine operates within predefined safety limits. In contrast, RL is distinguished by its adaptability to changing conditions through its learning-based approach. However, the practical implementation of either method alone poses challenges. RL requires high variance in control inputs during early learning phases, which can pose risks to the system by potentially executing unsafe actions, leading to mechanical damage. Conversely, ML-MPC relies on an accurate system model to generate optimal control inputs and has limited adaptability to system drifts, such as injector aging, which naturally occur in engine applications. To address these limitations, this study proposes a hybrid RL and ML-MPC approach that uses an ML-MPC framework while incorporating an RL agent to dynamically adjust the ML-MPC load tracking reference in response to changes in the environment. At the same time, the ML-MPC ensures that actions stay safe throughout the RL agent's exploration. To evaluate the effectiveness of this approach, fuel pressure is deliberately varied to introduce a model-plant mismatch between the ML-MPC and the engine test bench. The result of this mismatch is a root mean square error (RMSE) in indicated mean effective pressure of 0.57 bar when running the ML-MPC. The experimental results demonstrate that RL successfully adapts to changing boundary conditions by altering the tracking reference while ML-MPC ensures safe control inputs. The quantitative improvement in load tracking by implementing RL is an RSME of 0.44 bar.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".