MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415230187 · doi:10.3390/en18205439

Transformer-Based Transfer Learning for Battery State-of-Health Estimation

2025· article· en· W4415230187 on OpenAlexafffund
Alessandro Giuliano, Yuandi Wu, John Yawney, S. Andrew Gadsden

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTransformerTransfer of learningMean squared errorState of healthBattery (electricity)Predictive modellingBattery capacity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The accurate prediction of batteries’ state of health has been an important research topic in recent years, given the surge in electric vehicle production. Dynamically assessing the current state of health of a battery can help predict how long the battery will last during the next discharge cycle, which is directly related to an electric vehicle’s autonomy calculations. Data-driven approaches have been successful in accurately estimating the state of health through machine learning-based models. Within this research topic, limited studies have been carried out to explore the transfer learning capabilities of these models to improve performance and reduce computational costs related to training. This paper aims to compare the performance of different machine learning models to adapt to diverse battery working conditions, as well as their transfer learning capabilities to batteries with different electrochemical compositions. A new transformer-based model is proposed for the SOH estimation problem. The results show that the proposed transformer model can improve its prediction performance through transfer learning when compared to the same model trained exclusively on the target dataset. When pre-trained on the NASA dataset and fine-tuned on the Oxford dataset, the transformer achieved an average RMSE of 0.01461, outperforming the best-performing model (an ANN with an RMSE of 0.01747) trained exclusively on the target data by 17%. On top of improving its performance, the model is also able to outperform a competing transformer model from the literature, which reported an RMSE of 0.90170 on a similar cross-composition transfer task.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicAdvanced Battery Technologies ResearchFrench-language works237,207