Comparative Study between Equivalent Circuit and Recurrent Neural Network Battery Voltage Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lithium-ion battery (LIB) terminal voltage models are investigated using two modelling approaches. The first model is a third-order Thevenin equivalent circuit model (ECM), which consists of an open-circuit voltage in series with a nonlinear resistance and three parallel RC pairs. The parameters of the ECM are obtained by fitting the model to hybrid pulse power characterization (HPPC) test data. The parametrization of the ECM is performed through quadratic-based programming. The second is a novel modelling approach based on long short-term memory (LSTM) recurrent neural networks to estimate the battery terminal voltage. The LSTM is trained on multiple vehicle drive cycles at six different temperatures, including −20°C, without the necessity of battery characterization tests. The performance of both models is evaluated with four automotive drive cycles at each temperature. The results show that both models achieve acceptable performance at all temperatures. However, the LSTM performs better in 92% of the cases, especially at lower temperatures, where it has as much as two-thirds lower error than the ECM approach.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".