Electric bus energy prediction and factors interactions using explainable machine learning models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Battery electric buses (BEBs) are pivotal for sustainable urban transportation, yet their energy consumption is influenced by complex, interrelated factors that challenge accurate estimation and optimization. While machine learning models excel in energy prediction, their "black-box" nature limits practical deployment. This study addresses this gap by developing an interpretable machine learning framework integrating several machine learning models with SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) and partial dependence plots (PDP). Using a high-fidelity simulation dataset of 169,344 scenarios generated via a validated MATrix LABoratory (MATLAB) Simulink model, we systematically analyze energy consumption under diverse driving conditions: covering extreme gradients (−8 % to 8 %), passenger loads (0–75), and Heating Ventilation and Air Condition (HVAC) usage (1.25–22.3 kW) as a proxy for temperature effects. The eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) was selected as the best-performing machine learning model. SHAP analysis identified road gradient, initial state of charge (SoC), and Heating Ventilation and Air Condition (HVAC) usage as dominant factors, with nonlinear interactions between average speed and stop density ratio significantly impacting energy use. A human-machine interface (HMI) was developed to translate these insights into actionable recommendations for route optimization and driver training, enabling energy savings with minimal data acquisition costs. This study bridges the gap between theoretical energy models and practical decision-making, offering a robust framework for BEB fleet management while highlighting future directions for integrating real-world environmental data. • We fill the gap in the BEB energy consumption model interpretation. • We developed an interpretable Machine learning model for BEB energy consumption. • SHAP and PDP methods are combined to explain machine learning-based models. • Influence relationships and interactions of energy consumption factors are parsed. • Decision support tools and remarks are offered to fleet managers to reduce energy use.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".