Comparison of Decentralized ADMM Optimization Algorithms for Power Allocation in Modular Fuel Cell Vehicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The advanced modular powertrains are envisioned as primary part of future hybrid fuel cell vehicles (FCVs). The existing papers in the literature solely cope with the hardware side of modularity, while the software side is also vital to capitalize on the total capacity of these powertrains. Driven by this motivation, this article puts forward a comparative study of two novel decentralized convex optimization frameworks based on alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM) to solve a multi-objective power allocation strategy (PAS) problem in a modular FCV (MFCV). The MFCV in this article is composed of two fuel cell (FC) stacks and a battery pack. Despite the existing centralized strategies for such a modular system, this manuscript proposes two decentralized PASs (Dec-PASs) based on Consensus ADMM (C-ADMM) and Proximal Jacobian ADMM (PJ-ADMM) to bridge the gap regarding the appreciation of modularity in software terms. Herein, after formulating the central PAS optimization problem, the principle of utilizing such decentralized algorithms is presented in detail. Subsequently, the performance of the proposed Dec-PASs is examined through several numerical simulations as well as experiments on a developed small-scale test bench. The obtained results illustrate that decomposition into decentralized forms enables solving the complex PAS optimization problem faster and provides modularity and flexibility. Furthermore, the proposed Dec-PASs can cope with fault and malfunction and thus augment the durability and robustness of modular powertrain systems.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".