A Decentralized Multi-agent Energy Management Strategy Based on a Look-Ahead Reinforcement Learning Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An energy management strategy (EMS) has an essential role in ameliorating the efficiency and lifetime of the powertrain components in a hybrid fuel cell vehicle (HFCV). The EMS of intelligent HFCVs is equipped with advanced data-driven techniques to efficiently distribute the power flow among the power sources, which have heterogeneous energetic characteristics. Decentralized EMSs provide higher modularity (plug and play) and reliability compared to the centralized data-driven strategies. Modularity is the specification that promotes the discovery of new components in a powertrain system without the need for reconfiguration. Hence, this article puts forward a decentralized reinforcement learning (Dec-RL) framework for designing an EMS in a heavy-duty HFCV. The studied powertrain is composed of two parallel fuel cell systems (FCSs) and a battery pack. The contribution of the suggested multi-agent approach lies in the development of a fully decentralized learning strategy composed of several connected local modules. The performance of the proposed approach is investigated through several simulations and experimental tests. The results indicate the advantage of the established Dec-RL control scheme in convergence speed and optimization criteria.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".