Optimal Energy Management of Hybrid Storage Systems Using an Alternative Approach of Pontryagin’s Minimum Principle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluating performances of real-time strategies for hybrid energy storage systems (HESSs) of electric vehicles (EVs) always requires optimal energy management strategies (EMSs) as offline benchmarks. Dynamic programming (DP) is well-known due to its ability to obtain global optimal solutions based on the numerical searching technique. Nevertheless, DP accuracy depends on the numericalization fineness. Analytical optimal control methods, typically Pontryagin’s minimum principle (PMP), are also frequently used as effective counterparts. However, solving optimal control problems based on these methods often depends on the complexity and the characteristic of the system model; basically, it is sophisticated since there is no general way to solve the issue. This article proposes an alternative approach of using PMP to develop an optimal EMS for battery/supercapacitor HESSs. The novel strategy is based on formulating the problem in terms of power and energy, which forms a state-constrained optimal control problem. PMP is then applied with a penalty function, in which the inequality state constraints are reformulated to deduce a new state-unconstrained problem. The proposed optimal EMS is hundreds of times faster than DP with better results. Moreover, the optimal solution is piecewise constant that could give significant insights to develop real-time strategies in future studies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".