MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406764077 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2025.01.116

Performance Prediction of a Range of Diverse Solid Oxide Fuel Cells using Deep Learning and Principal Component Analysis

2024· article· en· W4406764077 on OpenAlexafffund
Zeynab Salehi, Mohamadali Tofigh, Sajad Vafaeenezhad, Daniel J. Smith, Charles Robert Koch, Mahdi Shahbakhti

Bibliographic record

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicAdvancements in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersFusion Energy SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPrincipal component analysisRange (aeronautics)Component (thermodynamics)Fuel cellsOxideMaterials scienceDeep learningComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceNanotechnologyChemical engineeringEngineeringPhysicsComposite materialThermodynamicsMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) is a common fuel cell type that has high efficiency. SOFC is a complex non-linear system, subject to aging and manufacturing variation, which makes performance prediction difficult. To estimate the SOFC performance data-driven methods allow a trade-of between computation cost and accuracy. Eight different SOFC tubular cells with different properties are fabricated and experimentally tested in 18 different operating conditions. A deep neural network (DNN) is used to predict the output voltage of the cells. The input features of this network are the cell physical properties determined by scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis and the operating parameters. As a first step, all measurable features are provided to principal component analysis (PCA) for feature selection resulting in a 50% reduction in features, resulting in a corresponding 50% reduction in the training time of the DNN. This trained DNN is able to capture the non-linear voltage drop of concentration polarization in the current density-voltage (J-V) curves. The prediction performance of the network is evaluated using three performance metrics of coefficient of determination (R 2 ), root mean square error (RMSE), and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) with satisfactory accuracy for both the training and test datasets. For all predictions, R 2 is 0.99, MAPE is less than 1%, and RMSE is 0.0001 on the test dataset. During the training process, both the validation loss and training loss approach zero indicating that the trained model is not over-fitted. The DNN model can be useful for design and operation optimization purposes.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score0.748

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIFAC-PapersOnLineSame topicAdvancements in Solid Oxide Fuel CellsFrench-language works237,207