MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402501659 · doi:10.11159/icert24.118

Predictive Modelling of PEMFC Degradation Against Hydrogen Crossover Using Machine Learning Models in Matlab

2024· article· en· W4402501659 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ricky Jay Gomez, Dahlia C. Apodaca, Michelle Almendrala

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on New Technologies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFuel Cells and Related Materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrossoverProton exchange membrane fuel cellDegradation (telecommunications)Computer scienceMATLABFuel cellsMachine learningChemical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The complexity and nonlinearity of the connection between the hydrogen crossover and OCV decay led to extremely challenging establishment of their relationship and the possible prediction of their values using both experimental and conventional computational modeling approaches.Thus, machine learning becomes invaluable in providing low cost and efficient surrogate models that can capture and comprehend the effects of influential factors affecting the trends in the hydrogen crossover and OCV which makes the system highly complicated.To address the challenges in the characterization of PEMFC performance degradation as affected by the temporal hydrogen crossover, this work developed five ML-based models to carry out the OCV predictions using Matlab.The results of model performance evaluation, statistical analysis, and model fit performance suggest that Gaussian Process Regression-based model gave the best prediction accuracy among the other models using algorithms such as the Tri-Layered Neural Network, Ensemble, Decision Tree, and Kernel, with R and R 2 values of 1.0000 and 1.0000, respectively.During the deployment of GPR-based model, these values were observed to decrease to 0.9893 and 0.9787, respectively; still, an indicative of a well-performing model.Inversely, the model has showed more generalizability towards new experimental data and has minimized overfitting which makes it an excellent model for deployment.This finding is also aligned with the minimal RMSE, MSE, and MAE values of 0.0053, 0.00002765, and 0.0030, respectively.Given this, this work demonstrated the usability of machine learning to address the complexity of PEMFC degradation.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.305
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.193 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on New TechnologiesSame topicFuel Cells and Related MaterialsFrench-language works237,207