Explainable AI for Battery Degradation Prediction in EVs: Toward Transparent Energy Forecasting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid growth of electric vehicles (EVs) has intensified the demand for accurate and interpretable battery health prediction systems. While machine learning models have demonstrated high accuracy in forecasting battery degradation, their “black-box” nature poses challenges for real-world deployment in safety-critical applications. This paper proposes an explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) framework for battery degradation prediction, aiming to provide transparent and reliable insights into energy storage dynamics in EVs. The study integrates data-driven models such as Gradient Boosting Machines (GBMs) and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks with post hoc explainability tools, including SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) and Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME). Experimental evaluations on real-world EV battery datasets show that the proposed framework achieves strong predictive performance while offering interpretable outputs regarding feature influence and degradation dynamics. These findings suggest that XAI-enabled models can bridge the gap between predictive power and trust, contributing to smarter battery management systems and sustainable transportation.
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".