MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392449876 · doi:10.1109/jestie.2024.3373267

Comprehensive Comparative Analysis of Deep-Learning-Based State-of-Charge Estimation Algorithms for Cloud-Based Lithium-Ion Battery Management Systems

2024· article· en· W4392449876 on OpenAlexaff
Dominic Karnehm, Akash Samanta, Latha Anekal, Sebastian Pohlmann, Antje Neve, Sheldon S. Williamson

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Industrial Electronics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsState of chargeCharge (physics)Lithium (medication)IonState (computer science)Computer scienceAlgorithmBattery (electricity)Cloud computingLithium-ion batteryMaterials scienceChemistryPhysicsPsychologyOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A modern battery management system (BMS) in electric vehicles plays a crucial role in enhancing battery pack safety, reliability, and performance, particularly in e-transportation applications. To achieve more accurate estimation methods, combining battery digital twinning with cloud computing for computational power and data storage capabilities proves beneficial. Over the last decade, various data-driven state-of-charge (SOC) estimation methods, such as machine learning and deep learning approaches, have been introduced to provide highly precise estimations. The widely used SOC estimation method in the industry is the extended Kalman filter (EKF). To explore and analyze the potential use of SOC estimation in a cloud platform, this paper develops and conducts a comparative analysis of four SOC estimation methods: EKF, Feedforward Neural Network (FNN), Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU), and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM). These models are deployed in two cloud computing infrastructures, and their accuracy and computing time are thoroughly examined in this study. The study concludes that the EKF method is the fastest and most accurate among all considered methods. It boasts an average execution time of 54.8 ms and a mean absolute error of <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$\mathbf {2\times 10^{-4}}$</tex-math></inline-formula> when measured over a physical distance of approximately 450 km via the mobile network Long-Term Evolution (LTE).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.387
Threshold uncertainty score0.698

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Industrial ElectronicsSame topicAdvanced Battery Technologies ResearchFrench-language works237,207