MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407578834 · doi:10.3390/s25041175

Weather-Adaptive Regenerative Braking Strategy Based on Driving Style Recognition for Intelligent Electric Vehicles

2025· article· en· W4407578834 on OpenAlexafffund
Marwa Ziadia, Sousso Kélouwani, Ali Amamou, Kodjo Agbossou

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRegenerative brakeAutomotive engineeringEngineeringEngine brakingComputer scienceBrake

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the energy efficiency of smart electric vehicles equipped with regenerative braking systems under challenging weather conditions. While Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) are primarily designed to enhance driving safety, they often overlook energy efficiency. This study proposes a Weather-Adaptive Regenerative Braking Strategy (WARBS) system, which leverages onboard sensors and data processing capabilities to enhance the energy efficiency of regenerative braking across diverse weather conditions while minimizing unnecessary alerts. To achieve this, we develop driving style recognition models that integrate road conditions, such as weather and road friction, with different driving styles. Next, we propose an adaptive deceleration plan that aims to maximize the conversion of kinetic energy into electrical energy for the vehicle's battery under varying weather conditions, considering vehicle dynamics and speed constraints. Given that the potential for energy recovery through regenerative braking is diminished on icy and snowy roads compared to dry ones, our approach introduces a driving context recognition system to facilitate effective speed planning. Both simulation and experimental validation indicate that this approach can significantly enhance overall energy efficiency.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score0.730

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicAutonomous Vehicle Technology and SafetyFrench-language works237,207