Approach for Rigorous Evaluation of a Battery Fuel Gauge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A battery management system (BMS) is crucial for the safe and reliable operation of a battery pack. During use, it is important to monitor the remaining charge in the battery, known as the state of charge (SOC), to preserve battery health and lifetime. However, the SOC of a battery cannot be directly measured and it is approximated by the battery fuel gauge (BFG) using several empirical approaches. The accuracy of the SOC calculated by the BFG is affected by (i) temperature (ii) charging/usage history (iii) hysteresis and relaxation effects. Evaluating the SOC values reported by a BFG remains a challenging problem due to the fact that it is not possible to know the true SOC value. Consequently, indirect measures were developed to evaluate the SOC estimates reported by a BFG. In this paper, three BFG evaluation metrics: the Coulomb counting (CC) metric, the open circuit voltage (OCV) metric and the time-to-voltage (TTV) metric are demonstrated. The present paper is focused on demonstrating the implementation details of the above three BFG evaluation metrics. The proposed metrics are modified versions of previously reported ones to make the BFG evaluation more robust. Voltage and current data generated from a battery simulator and a BFG based on the extended Kalman filter algorithms were employed to demonstrate the proposed evaluation scheme. The battery in the simulator is set to an Rint approximation of the equivalent circuit model (ECM) and the BFG is set to assume the knowledge of the ECM model parameters. Voltage and current measurements were simulated based on a noisy model with zero mean and known standard deviation. Under these assumptions, the BFG under evaluation produced less than 1% error in SOC and less than 15 minutes in TTV error. These values, produced under the known model assumption, can be taken as a benchmark for the same voltage and current measurement noise statistics.
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 | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".