Deep Learning-Powered Lifetime Prediction for Lithium-Ion Batteries Based on Small Amounts of Charging Cycles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The accurate lifetime prediction of lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) is essential to the normal and effective operation of electric devices. However, such estimation faces huge challenges due to the nonlinear capacity degradation process and uncertain LIBs’ operating conditions. This article proposes a novel end-to-end deep learning (DL) model, namely, a dual-stream vision transformer with the efficient self-attention mechanism (DS-ViT-ESA), to predict the current cycle life (CCL) and remaining useful life (RUL) of the target battery. The local and global spatiotemporal features are effectively captured via the vision transformer (ViT) with the efficient self-attention (ESA) mechanism based on small amounts of charging cycles. Meanwhile, by serving the differences between each cycle as the supplementary model input, the inner cycle and cycle-to-cycle aging information could be extracted and fused by a dual-stream structure to enhance prediction accuracy. Experiments exhibit that the proposed model only needs 15 charging cycles (about 1%~3% along the trajectory to failure) while ensuring the lifetime prediction accuracy (RUL error: 5.40%, CCL error: 4.64%, and early lifetime prediction error: 2.16%). Meanwhile, the model also shows the effective zero-shot generalization capacity for the charging strategies not appearing in the training dataset.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".