Comparative Analysis of Lithium-Ion Battery Resistance Estimation Techniques for Battery Management Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Safe and efficient operation of a battery pack requires a battery management system (BMS) that can accurately predict the pack state-of-heath (SOH). Although there is no universal definition for battery SOH, it is often defined based on the increase in the battery’s internal resistance. Techniques such as extended Kalman filter (EKF) and recursive least squares (RLS) are two frequently used approaches for online estimation of this resistance. These two methods can, however, be computationally expensive, especially in the case of a battery pack composed of hundreds of cells. In addition, both methods require a battery model as well as chemistry specific parameters. Therefore, this paper investigates the performance of a direct resistance estimation (DRE) technique that requires minimal computational resources and can be implemented without any training data. This approach estimates the ohmic resistance only when the battery experiences sharp pulses in current. Comparison of results from the three algorithms shows that the DRE algorithm can accurately identify a degraded cell under various operating conditions while significantly reducing the required computational complexity. The findings will further advance diagnostic techniques for the identification of a weak cell in a large battery pack.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".