Comparative Analysis of Two Online Identification Algorithms in a Fuel Cell System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Output power of a fuel cell (FC) stack can be controlled through operating parameters (current, temperature, etc.) and is impacted by ageing and degradation. However, designing a complete FC model which includes the whole physical phenomena is very difficult owing to its multivariate nature. Hence, online identification of a FC model, which serves as a basis for global energy management of a fuel cell vehicle (FCV), is considerably important. In this paper, two well‐known recursive algorithms are compared for online estimation of a multi‐input semi‐empirical FC model parameters. In this respect, firstly, a semi‐empirical FC model is selected to reach a satisfactory compromise between computational time and physical meaning. Subsequently, the algorithms are explained and implemented to identify the parameters of the model. Finally, experimental results achieved by the algorithms are discussed and their robustness is investigated. The ultimate results of this experimental study indicate that the employed algorithms are highly applicable in coping with the problem of FC output power alteration, due to the uncertainties caused by degradation and operation condition variations, and these results can be utilized for designing a global energy management strategy in a FCV.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".