MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392939459 · doi:10.1109/tte.2024.3377809

Deep Reinforcement Learning for Intelligent Energy Management Systems of Hybrid-Electric Powertrains: Recent Advances, Open Issues, and Prospects

2024· article· en· W4392939459 on OpenAlexaff
Yuecheng Li, Hongwen He, Amir Khajepour, Yong Chen, Weiwei Huo, Hao Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Transportation Electrification · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric and Hybrid Vehicle Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPowertrainReinforcement learningEnergy managementComputer scienceEngineeringEnergy (signal processing)Artificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The hybrid-electric powertrain presents an immediate solution to energy and environmental challenges encountered within the realm of transportation. Targeting the optimization of hybrid-electric powertrains, deep reinforcement learning (DRL) has been intensively and increasingly investigated to develop intelligent energy management systems in the context of augmented vehicular and traffic information. After a brief introduction to the Markov Decision Process and DRL, this paper presents a comprehensive survey of the recent advancements in DRL-based energy management. The survey categorizes the progress based on the various roles that DRL plays in energy management systems, highlighting the flexibility and advantages of integrating DRL for achieving energy efficiency, safety, and reliable performance. Furthermore, the study concludes with an analysis of open issues and future prospects, including the learning and application of DRL-based energy management strategies, development of novel DRL algorithms, and integration of DRL-based energy management in intelligent and sustainable transportation contexts.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.936

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 head0.245
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Transportation ElectrificationSame topicElectric and Hybrid Vehicle TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207