Double Deep Reinforcement Learning-Based Energy Management for a Parallel Hybrid Electric Vehicle With Engine Start–Stop Strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Committed to optimizing the fuel economy of hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), improving the working conditions of the engine, and promoting research on deep reinforcement learning (DRL) in the field of energy management strategies (EMSs), this article first proposed a DRL-based EMS combined with a rule-based engine start–stop strategy. Moreover, considering that both the engine and the transmission are controlled components, this article developed a novel double DRL (DDRL)-based EMS, which uses a deep Q-network (DQN) to learning the gear-shifting strategy and uses a deep deterministic policy gradient (DDPG) to control the engine throttle opening, and the DDRL-based EMS realizes the multiobjective synchronization control by different types of learning algorithms. After off-line training, the simulation result of the online test shows that the fuel consumption gaps of the proposed DRL- and DDRL-based EMSs are −0.55% and 2.33% compared to that of the deterministic dynamic programming (DDP)-based EMS by overcoming some inherent flaws of DDP, respectively. The computational efficiency has been significantly improved, and the average output time per action is 0.91 ms. Therefore, the control strategy that combines learning- and rule-based controls and the multiobjective control strategies both have the potential to ensure optimization and real-time efficiency.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".