A Lithium-Ion Battery Degradation Prediction Model With Uncertainty Quantification for Its Predictive Maintenance
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
Battery degradation modeling in the presence of uncertainty is a key but challenging issue in the application of battery predictive maintenance. This article develops a capacity prediction model with uncertainty quantification for lithium-ion batteries and proposes a dynamic maintenance strategy that can help to make an optimized decision at each battery cycle stage. To be specific, after using the 1-D convolution neural network (1dCNN), deep representative features hidden in original measured signals are extracted. Then, the bidirectional long short-term memory (Bi-LSTM) is applied to estimate the battery capacities, while the quantile regression (QR) layer is embedded into the construction of the Bi-LSTM network to obtain the capacities for different quantiles. Next, the kernel density estimation (KDE) is utilized to derive the probability density of the predicted points at each battery cycle stage. Thus, the combination of 1dCNN, Bi-LSTM, QR, and KDE, named 1dCNN-BiLSTMQR-KDE, forms an efficacious capacity prediction model with reliable uncertainty management. Finally, the costs of different decisions at each battery cycle stage are evaluated, and the decision with the lower cost will be chosen. The whole proposition is verified on battery degradation datasets from NASA, and the comparison with other methods show that the proposed method is competitive.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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