A Comparative Study between Physics, Electrical and Data Driven Lithium-Ion Battery Voltage Modeling Approaches
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">This paper benchmarks three different lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery voltage modelling approaches, a physics-based approach using an Extended Single Particle Model (ESPM), an equivalent circuit model, and a recurrent neural network. The ESPM is the selected physics-based approach because it offers similar complexity and computational load to the other two benchmarked models. In the ESPM, the anode and cathode are simplified to single particles, and the partial differential equations are simplified to ordinary differential equations via model order reduction. Hence, the required state variables are reduced, and the simulation speed is improved. The second approach is a third-order equivalent circuit model (ECM), and the third approach uses a model based on a Long Short-Term Memory Recurrent Neural Network (LSTM-RNN)). A Li-ion pouch cell with 47 Ah nominal capacity is used to parameterize all the models. The models are tested and compared using four standard drive cycles at six ambient temperatures ranging from -20<sup>0</sup>C to 40 <sup>0</sup>C. The proposed models are benchmarked using various qualitative and quantitative means including, accuracy, engineering effort to parametrize and create the model, and the ability of each model to represent the nonlinear behavior of the battery. The comparison between the three models shows that the ECM and the LSTM models have better accuracy than the ESPM. However, the ESPM requires a reduced set of calibration data, is highly capable of incorporating the complex nonlinear behavior of the battery, and the parameters have physical meaning.</div></div>
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it