Battery Health Monitoring and Remaining Useful Life Prediction Techniques: A Review of Technologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries have become essential in modern industries and domestic applications due to their high energy density and efficiency. However, they experience gradual degradation over time, which presents significant challenges in maintaining optimal battery performance and increases the risk of unexpected system failures. To ensure the reliability and longevity of Li-ion batteries in applications, various methods have been proposed for battery health monitoring and remaining useful life (RUL) prediction. This paper provides a comprehensive review and analysis of the primary approaches employed for battery health monitoring and RUL estimation under the categories of model-based, data-driven, and hybrid methods. Generally speaking, model-based methods use physical or electrochemical models to simulate battery behaviour, which offers valuable insights into the principles that govern battery degradation. Data-driven techniques leverage historical data, AI, and machine learning algorithms to identify degradation trends and predict RUL, which can provide flexible and adaptive solutions. Hybrid approaches integrate multiple methods to enhance predictive accuracy by combining the physical insights of model-based methods with the statistical and analytical strengths of data-driven techniques. This paper thoroughly evaluates these methodologies, focusing on recent advancements along with their respective strengths and limitations. By consolidating current findings and highlighting potential pathways for advancement, this review paper serves as a foundational resource for researchers and practitioners working to advance battery health monitoring and RUL prediction methods across both academic and industrial fields.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".