MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410989301 · doi:10.3390/electronics14112280

Research on Model Prediction of Remaining Service Life of Lithium-Ion Batteries Based on Chaotic Time Series

2025· article· en· W4410989301 on OpenAlexaff
Tongrui Zhang, Hao Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChaoticBattery (electricity)Computer scienceChaos theorySupport vector machineLyapunov exponentStability (learning theory)Series (stratigraphy)Phase spaceTime seriesPower (physics)AlgorithmReliability engineeringArtificial intelligenceMachine learningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To address the conflicting demands of the energy crisis, environmental pollution, and economic growth, the electric vehicle (EV) industry has expanded rapidly, facilitating the widespread adoption of power batteries. This paper investigates the use of chaos theory and machine learning for predicting the remaining useful life (RUL) of lithium-ion batteries. Firstly, the mutual information method determines the time delay of the monitoring sequence, while the improved false nearest neighbor method (Cao algorithm) establishes the embedding dimension, yielding the phase space reconstruction parameters. Secondly, the maximum Lyapunov exponent identifies the chaotic properties of the capacity decay time series, and a prediction dataset is constructed based on phase space reconstruction theory. Finally, leveraging the chaotic time-series features, a support vector machine (SVM) model is developed for lithium-ion battery RUL prediction. The algorithm is subsequently validated through simulation using the NASA battery dataset. The results demonstrate that the proposed method achieves high predictive accuracy and stability, providing reliable RUL estimates for the battery management system (BMS).

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)0.001
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 score0.199
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronicsSame topicAdvanced Battery Technologies ResearchFrench-language works237,207