MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparative study of a new semi-empirical model of the proton exchange membrane fuel cell for online prognostics applications

2025· article· en· W4408010055 on OpenAlexaff
Luis Miguel Pérez Archila, Samir Jemeï, Loïc Boulon, Alexandre Ravey, Mohsen Kandidayeni, Javier Solano

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy Conversion and Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFuel Cells and Related Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsPrognosticsProton exchange membrane fuel cellFuel cellsProtonBiochemical engineeringEngineeringComputer scienceNuclear engineeringReliability engineeringChemical engineeringPhysicsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prognostic of the proton exchange membrane fuel cell is a current topic of research. Consequently, the complexity of its degradation mechanisms has led to the development of semi-empirical models to improve predictive analysis. The accurate estimation of parameters for these models is a challenging task due to their multivariate, nonlinear, and complex characteristics. This work proposes a new semi-empirical model of the proton exchange membrane fuel cell and compares it with a widely used model in the literature. Unlike other similar studies, this comparison not only focuses on minimizing the sum of squared errors in relation to the experimental data but also evaluates the variation in the solution set and the computational effort involved. For both models, the unknown parameters are estimated using the recent Pelican Optimization Algorithm. Four datasets are used to evaluate the development of the proposed model and the selected benchmark model. The first three datasets are open-access and well-recognized in academic literature, whereas the fourth dataset was obtained from a developed experimental test bench. The results show that the proposed model achieves high accuracy, with a mean absolute percentage error lower than 0.89% and the sum of squared errors below 0.9272 for all the studied scenarios. This model reduces parameter variation and decreases the relative standard deviation by over 12.7% compared to the utilized benchmark model for the first three datasets. Hence, the proposed model not only improves the precision of the estimated parameters without a notable increase in error but also reduces the computational load by at least 21.7% across all case studies.

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 score0.306
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations10
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy Conversion and ManagementSame topicFuel Cells and Related MaterialsFrench-language works237,207