An Accurate Parameter Estimation Method of the Voltage Model for Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate and reliable mathematical modeling is essential for the optimal control and performance analysis of polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) systems, which are mainly implemented based on accurate parameter estimation. In this paper, a multi-strategy tuna swarm optimization (MS-TSO) is proposed to estimate the parameters of PEMFC voltage models and compare them with other optimizers such as differential evolution, the whale optimization approach, the salp swarm algorithm, particle swarm optimization, Harris hawk optimization and the slime mould algorithm. In the optimizing routine, the unidentified factors of the PEMFCs are used as the decision variables, which are optimized to minimize the sum of square errors between the estimated and measured data. The optimizers are examined based on three PEMFC datasets including BCS500W, NedStackPS6 and harizon500W as well as a set of experimental data which are measured using the Greenlight G20 platform with a 25 cm2 single cell at 353 K. It is confirmed that MS-TSO gives better performance in terms of convergence speed and accuracy than the competing algorithms. Furthermore, the results achieved by MS-TSO are compared with other reported approaches in the literature. The advantages of MS-TSO in ascertaining the optimum factors of various PEMFCs have been comprehensively demonstrated.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".