A Comparison of Battery Equivalent Circuit Model Parameter Extraction Approaches Based on Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents three approaches to estimating the battery parameters of the electrical equivalent circuit model (ECM) based on electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS); these approaches are referred to as (a) least squares (LS), (b) exhaustive search (ES), and (c) nonlinear least squares (NLS). The ES approach is assisted by the LS method for the rough determination of the lower and upper bound of the ECM parameters, and the NLS approach is incorporated with the Monte Carlo run such that different initial guesses can be assigned to improve the goodness of EIS fitting. The proposed approaches are validated using both simulated and real EIS data. Compared to the LS approach, the ES and NLS approaches show better fitting accuracy at various noise levels, whereas in both the validation using simulated EIS data and actual EIS data collected from LG 18650 and Molicel 21700 batteries, the NLS approach shows better fitting accuracy than that of LS and ES approaches. In all cases, compared with the ES approach, the computational time of the NLS approach is significantly faster, and compared with the LS approach, the NLS approach shows a minimal difference in computational time and considerably better fitting performance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".