Sensitivity Analysis and Joint Estimation of Parameters and States for All-Solid-State Batteries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All-solid-state batteries (ASSBs) are considered to be the next generation of lithium-ion batteries. Physics-based models (PBMs) can effectively simulate the internal electrochemical reactions and provide critical internal states for battery management. In order to promote the onboard applications of PBMs for ASSBs, in this article, the parameter sensitivity of a typical PBM is analyzed, and a joint estimation method for states and parameters based on sigma-point Kalman filtering (SPKF) is proposed. First, to obtain accurate sensitivity analysis results, approaches from different principles, including local sensitivity, elementary effect test, and variance-based methods, are applied. Then, for the battery model based on partial differential equations, a nonlinear state-space model is constructed by using the finite-difference discretization method. Finally, the SPKF algorithm is employed to conduct the joint estimation of model parameters and lithium-ion concentrations. The results from constant current and dynamic cycles show that two parameters, namely maximum lithium-ion concentration and minimum lithium-ion concentration, have the most influence on the model results. The joint estimation method is validated in three different cases, and the mean absolute errors of the estimated voltage and state of charge (SOC) are below 2.1 mV and 1.5%, respectively.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".