Comparative Analysis of Computational Times of Lithium-Ion Battery Management Solvers and Battery Models Under Different Programming Languages and Computing Architectures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the global rise in consumer electronics, electric vehicles, and renewable energy, the demand for lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) is expected to grow. LIBs present a significant challenge for state estimations due to their complex non-linear electrochemical behavior. Currently, commercial battery management systems (BMSs) commonly use easier-to-implement and faster equivalent circuit models (ECMs) than their counterpart continuum-scale physics-based models (PBMs). However, despite processing more mathematical and computational complexity, PBMs are attractive due to their higher accuracy, higher fidelity, and ease of integration with thermal and degradation models. Various reduced-order PBM battery models and their computationally efficient numerical schemes have been proposed in the literature. However, there is limited data on the performance and feasibility of these models in practical embedded and cloud systems using standard programming languages. This study compares the computational performance of a single particle model (SPM), an enhanced single particle model (ESPM), and a reduced-order pseudo-two-dimensional (ROM-P2D) model under various battery cycles on embedded and cloud systems using Python and C++. The results show that reduced-order solvers can achieve a 100-fold reduction in solution times compared to full-order models, while ESPM with electrolyte dynamics is about 1.5 times slower than SPM. Adding thermal models and Kalman filters increases solution times by approximately 20% and 100%, respectively. C++ provides at least a 10-fold speed increase over Python, varying by cycle steps. Although embedded systems take longer than cloud and personal computers, they can still run reduced-order models effectively in Python, making them suitable for embedded applications.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".