Comparison of Optimization Techniques for Lithium-Ion Battery Model Parameter Estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to rising fuel prices and environmental concerns, Electric Vehicles (EVs) and Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs) have been gaining market share as fuel-efficient, environmentally friendly alternatives. Lithium-ion batteries are commonly used in EV and HEV applications because of their high power and energy densities. During controls development of HEVs and EVs, hardware-in-the-loop simulations involving real-time battery models are commonly used to simulate a battery response in place of a real battery. One physics-based model which solves in real-time is the reduced-order battery model developed by Dao et al. [1], which is based on the isothermal model by Newman [2] incorporating concentrated solution theory and porous electrode theory [3]. The battery models must be accurate for effective control; however, if the battery parameters are unknown or change due to degradation, a method for estimating the battery parameters to update the model is required. A set of manufacturer recommended battery parameters were evaluated using a numerical sensitivity analysis to evaluate their identifiability. The parameters chosen to be identified were εp, εs and brugg. The optimization algorithms that were evaluated for parameter estimation were: Self-Adaptive Evolution, Efficient Global Optimization, Differential Evolution, and Simulated Annealing. These algorithms were evaluated based on how many simulation calls were required to converge to an accuracy of 1e-4. Differential Evolution was shown to have the best performance in estimating the parameters, requiring an average of 1485 simulations to converge.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".