Using the Pareto Set Pursuing Multiobjective Optimization Approach for Hybridization of a Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) can improve fuel economy and emission reduction significantly compared to hybrid electric vehicles and conventional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. Currently there lacks an efficient and effective approach to identify the optimal combination of the battery pack size, electric motor, and engine for PHEVs in the presence of multiple design objectives such as fuel economy, operating cost, and emission. This work proposes a design approach for optimal PHEV hybridization. Through integrating the Pareto set pursuing (PSP) multiobjective optimization algorithm and powertrain system analysis toolkit (PSAT) simulator on a Toyota Prius PHEV platform, 4480 possible combinations of design parameters (20 batteries, 14 motors, and 16 engines) were explored for PHEV20 and PHEV40 powertrain configurations. The proposed approach yielded the optimal solution in a small fraction of computational time, as compared to an exhaustive search. This confirms the efficiency and applicability of PSP to problems with discrete variables. In the design context we have found that battery, motor, and engine collectively define the optimal hybridization scheme, which also varies with the drive cycle and all electric range (AER). The proposed method and software platform could be applied to optimize other powertrain designs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".