MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimal Energy Management of a Dual-motor Electric Vehicle using Dynamic Programming

2021· article· en· W4210991577 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venue2021 IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference (VPPC) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric and Hybrid Vehicle Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnergy managementComputer scienceDynamic programmingTraction motorToolboxAxleMATLABDriving cycleAutomotive engineeringElectric vehicleState of chargeBenchmark (surveying)Battery electric vehicleComputationBattery (electricity)Energy (signal processing)EngineeringAlgorithmMechanical engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Energy management for the dual-motor all-wheel drive (AWD) electric vehicles (EV) is a trendy topic. The objective of this study is to develop a strategy that transfers the traction forces between two electric motors installed at the front and rear axles in order to reduce battery usage as much as possible. This paper takes the advantages of dynamic programming (DP) to obtain the global optimal results for this challenge. The discrete-time system model is firstly deduced by a backward formalism method, then DP computation is applied based on a Matlab toolbox. With the proposed strategy, the remaining battery state of charge under the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) is up to 85.25% while satisfying all system constraints. The proposed solution can be the benchmark for other researchers to develop their energy management strategies for the mentioned kind of EV.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.537
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it