ArticleScientific reports2025
An efficient approach for mathematical modeling and parameter estimation of PEM fuel based on Young's double-slit experiment algorithm.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- An enhanced Draco lizard optimizer for accurate parameter extraction of proton exchange membrane fuel cells.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Prediction of PEMFC life based on IGJO-TCN-BiGRU-Attention.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This paper introduces a novel optimization algorithm, Young's double-slit experiment algorithm (YSDE), for accurately estimating the unknown parameters of Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell (PEMFC) models. The proposed method integrates the YDSE algorithm with five other metaheuristic techniques: the sine cosine Algorithm (SCA), moth flame optimization (MFO), Harris Hawk optimization (HHO), gray wolf optimization (GWO) and chimp optimization Algorithm (ChOA) to estimate six critical parameters of PEMFC. Comparative analysis demonstrates that the YDSE algorithm outperforms competing methods by achieving the lowest Sum of Square Error (SSE) with a minimum value of approximately 1.9454, compared to higher values in other algorithms. Statistical evaluation over 30 independent runs reveals that YDSE attains a mean SSE of 1.9454 with an exceptionally low standard deviation of 2.21 × 10[Formula: see text], indicating remarkable consistency and robustness. Furthermore, the YDSE algorithm exhibits faster convergence, reaching optimal solutions in fewer iterations than other methods, thereby enhancing computational efficiency. The proposed YSDE is validated in three different PEMFC stack configurations, using standard performance indicators such as the sum of squared errors (SSE), standard deviation (SD), and Friedman rank (FRK). Experimental results demonstrate that YSDE consistently achieves superior accuracy and robustness. It reduces average SSE values by up to 97.8% compared to GWO and 97.6% compared to SCA. The worst-case SSE is improved by up to 70.6% over IChOA, and the standard deviation is reduced by 91.3% relative to MFO. In more complex configurations, YSDE maintains a 1000-times lower SD, while enhancing average accuracy by 2.6% over IChOA and 8.5% over MFO. Overall, YSDE achieves up to 87% improvement in ranking scores based on Friedman analysis, indicating its consistent superiority across different test cases. The statistical significance of YSDE's performance is confirmed through the Wilcoxon rank-sum and multiple comparison tests. These results highlight YSDE as a highly effective and stable solution for PEMFC system identification which has significant potential to develop digital twins and control systems in automotive applications and advance renewable energy technologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.