MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2920560441 · doi:10.1109/tia.2019.2902532

Extreme Learning Machine Model for State-of-Charge Estimation of Lithium-Ion Battery Using Gravitational Search Algorithm

2019· article· en· W2920560441 on OpenAlexaff
Molla Shahadat Hossain Lipu, M. A. Hannan, Aini Hussain, Mohamad Hanif Md Saad, Afida Ayob, M. Nasir Uddin

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Industry Applications · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
FundersUniversiti Kebangsaan MalaysiaUniversiti Tenaga NasionalMinistry of Higher Education
KeywordsExtreme learning machineRobustness (evolution)State of chargeArtificial neural networkComputer scienceAlgorithmBackpropagationGeneralizationArtificial intelligenceBattery (electricity)Machine learningMathematicsPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper develops a state-of-charge (SOC) estimation model for a lithium-ion battery using an improved extreme learning machine (ELM) algorithm. ELM is suitable for an SOC estimation since the ELM algorithm has fast estimation speed, good generalization performance, and high accuracy. However, the performance of ELM is highly dependent on training accuracy and the number of neurons in a hidden layer. Hence, a gravitational search algorithm (GSA) is applied to improve the ELM computational intelligence by searching for the optimal value hidden layer neurons. The optimal ELM-based GSA model does not require internal battery knowledge and mathematical model for an SOC estimation. The model robustness is validated at different temperatures using different electric vehicle drive cycles. The performance of the ELM-GSA model is verified with two popular neural network methods: back-propagation neural network (BPNN) and radial basis function neural network (RBFNN). The results are evaluated using different error rates and computation costs. The results demonstrate that the ELM-based GSA model offers a higher accuracy and lower SOC error rate than those of BPNN-based GSA and RBFNN-based GSA models. Furthermore, a detailed comparative study between the proposed model and existing SOC strategies is conducted, which also demonstrates the superiority of the proposed model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations186
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Industry ApplicationsSame topicAdvanced Battery Technologies ResearchFrench-language works237,207