Q-Learning-Based Supervisory Control Adaptability Investigation for Hybrid Electric Vehicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As one of adaptive optimal controls, the Q-learning based supervisory control for hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) energy management is rarely studied for its adaptability. In real-world driving scenarios, conditions such as vehicle loads, road conditions and traffic conditions may vary. If these changes occur and the vehicle supervisory control does not adapt to it, the resulting fuel economy may not be optimal. To our best knowledge, for the first time, the study investigates the adaptability of Q-learning based supervisory control for HEVs. A comprehensive analysis is presented for the adaptability interpretation with three varying factors: driving cycle, vehicle load condition, and road grade. A parallel HEV architecture is considered and Q-learning is used as the reinforcement learning algorithm to control the torque split between the engine and the electric motor. Model Predictive Control, Equivalent consumption minimization strategy and thermostatic control strategy are implemented for comparison. The Q-learning based supervisory control shows strong adaptability under different conditions, and it leads the fuel economy among four supervisory controls in all three varying conditions.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".