Power Split Strategy Optimization of a Plug-in Parallel Hybrid Electric Vehicle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hybrid electric vehicles (HEV), plug-in HEV (PHEV) need an energy management system (EMS) to ensure good fuel economy while maintaining battery state-of-charge (SOC) within a safe range. The EMS is in charge of the power split decision between the engine and the electrical motor. For a PHEV, the optimal power split scenario will depend on the driving cycle, initial SOC, and trip length. Heavy computation and accurate knowledge of the future trip are required to find the optimal power split control and this represents a significant difficulty for the development of an EMS. The aim of this paper is to propose a genetic algorithm (GA) that optimizes the power split control parameters for a given driving cycle in a relatively short computation time, thus, overcoming the problem of heavy computation. The methodology consists in 1) defining the control laws and their associated control parameters based on the observation of optimality obtained by dynamic programming; and 2) developing a GA that will be able to compute the near-optimal values of these parameters in a short time and for a given driving cycle. It is demonstrated that the GA provides short computational burden and near-optimality for a wide variety of driving cycles. It then offers a promising tool for a future real-time implementation.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".