A Critical Look at Coulomb Counting Approach for State of Charge Estimation in Batteries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we consider the problem of state-of-charge estimation for rechargeable batteries. Coulomb counting is a well-known method for estimating the state of charge, and it is regarded as accurate as long as the battery capacity and the beginning state of charge are known. The Coulomb counting approach, on the other hand, is prone to inaccuracies from a variety of sources, and the magnitude of these errors has not been explored in the literature. We formally construct and quantify the state-of-charge estimate error during Coulomb counting due to four types of error sources: (1) current measurement error; (2) current integration approximation error; (3) battery capacity uncertainty; and (4) timing oscillator error/drift. It is demonstrated that the state-of-charge error produced can be either time-cumulative or state-of-charge-proportional. Time-cumulative errors accumulate over time and have the potential to render the state-of-charge estimation utterly invalid in the long term.The proportional errors of the state of charge rise with the accumulated state of charge and reach their worst value within one charge/discharge cycle. The study presents methods for reducing time-cumulative and state-of-charge-proportional mistakes through simulation analysis.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".