Remaining Useful Life Assessment for Lithium-Ion Batteries Using CNN-LSTM-DNN Hybrid Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prediction of a Lithium-ion battery's lifetime is very important for ensuring safety and reliability. In addition, it is utilized as an early warning system to prevent the battery's failure. Recent advance in Machine Learning (ML) is an enabler for new data-driven estimation approaches. In this paper, we suggest a hybrid method, named the CNN-LSTM-DNN, which is a combination of Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), Long Short Term Memory (LSTM), and Deep Neural Networks (DNN), for the estimation of the battery's remaining useful life (RUL) and improving prediction accuracy with acceptable execution time. A comparison against various ML estimation algorithms is carried out to show the superiority of the proposed hybrid estimation approach. For that, three statistical indicators, i.e., the MAE, R2, and RMSE, are selected to assess numerically the prediction results. Experimental validation is performed using two datasets of different lithium-ion batteries from NASA and CALCE. Thus, results reveal that hybrid methods perform better than the single ones, also the effectiveness of the suggested method in reducing the prediction error and in achieving better RUL prediction performance compared to the other methods.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".