Data-driven capacity estimation of commercial lithium-ion batteries from voltage relaxation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Accurate capacity estimation is crucial for the reliable and safe operation of lithium-ion batteries. In particular, exploiting the relaxation voltage curve features could enable battery capacity estimation without additional cycling information. Here, we report the study of three datasets comprising 130 commercial lithium-ion cells cycled under various conditions to evaluate the capacity estimation approach. One dataset is collected for model building from batteries with LiNi 0.86 Co 0.11 Al 0.03 O 2 -based positive electrodes. The other two datasets, used for validation, are obtained from batteries with LiNi 0.83 Co 0.11 Mn 0.07 O 2 -based positive electrodes and batteries with the blend of Li(NiCoMn)O 2 - Li(NiCoAl)O 2 positive electrodes. Base models that use machine learning methods are employed to estimate the battery capacity using features derived from the relaxation voltage profiles. The best model achieves a root-mean-square error of 1.1% for the dataset used for the model building. A transfer learning model is then developed by adding a featured linear transformation to the base model. This extended model achieves a root-mean-square error of less than 1.7% on the datasets used for the model validation, indicating the successful applicability of the capacity estimation approach utilizing cell voltage relaxation.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".