A gradient screening approach for retired lithium-ion batteries based on X-ray computed tomography images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate and efficient screening of retired lithium-ion batteries from electric vehicles is crucial to guarantee reliable secondary applications such as in energy storage, electric bicycles, and smart grids. However, conventional electrochemical screening methods typically involve a charge/discharge process and usually take hours to measure critical parameters such as capacity, resistance, and voltage. To address this issue of low efficiency for battery screening, scanned X-ray Computed Tomography (CT) cross-sectional images in combination with a computational image recognition algorithm have been employed to explore the gradient screening of these retired batteries. Based on the Structural Similarity Index Measure (SSIM) algorithm with 2000 CT images per battery, the calculated CT scores are closely correlated with their internal resistance and capacity, indicating the feasibility of CT scores to sort retired batteries. We find out that when the CT scores are larger than 0.65, there is high potential for a secondary application. Therefore, this pioneering and non-destructive CT score method can reflect the internal electrochemical properties of these retired batteries, which could potentially expedite the battery reuse industry for a sustainable energy future.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".