A Comprehensive Review of Energy Management Strategies in Hybrid Electric Vehicles: Comparative Analysis and Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As air pollution, greenhouse gases, and global warming worsen, finding clean energy sources is critical. Renewable energy is a promising solution, especially in the transportation sector, which consumes significant energy. Hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), combining an internal combustion engine and an electric battery, are key to reducing fossil fuel use and mitigating environmental harm. Effectively managing power distribution between these sources to enhance efficiency and minimize fuel consumption is crucial, known as an Energy Management Strategy (EMS). This article provides an overview of various EMS approaches for HEVs, analyzing their advantages and disadvantages. Rule-based strategies offer simplicity, optimization-based strategies provide superior performance, and advanced techniques like machine learning promise significant improvements. Current trends include integrating sophisticated sensors, data analytics, and artificial intelligence for real-time decision-making. Future directions aim at robust EMS frameworks integrating smart grid technologies and vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication. The article reviews EMS methodologies, comparing their strengths and weaknesses, and discusses the main challenges and future trends in energy management for hybrid electric vehicles.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".