Comparative Analysis of ML and DL Models for Data-Driven SOH Estimation of LIBs Under Diverse Temperature and Load Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate estimation of lithium-ion battery (LIB) state of health (SOH) underpins safe operation, predictive maintenance, and lifetime-aware energy management. Despite recent advances in machine learning (ML), systematic benchmarking across heterogeneous real-world cells remains limited, often confounded by data leakage and inconsistent validation. Here, we establish a leakage-averse, cross-battery evaluation framework encompassing 32 commercial LIBs (B5–B56) spanning diverse cycling histories and temperatures (≈4 °C, 24 °C, 43 °C). Models ranging from classical regressors to ensemble trees and deep sequence architectures were assessed under blocked 5-fold GroupKFold splits using RMSE, MAE, R2 with confidence intervals, and inference latency. The results reveal distinct stratification among model families. Sequence-based architectures—CNN–LSTM, GRU, and LSTM—consistently achieved the highest accuracy (mean RMSE ≈ 0.006; per-cell R2 up to 0.996), demonstrating strong generalization across regimes. Gradient-boosted ensembles such as LightGBM and CatBoost delivered competitive mid-tier accuracy (RMSE ≈ 0.012–0.015) yet unrivaled computational efficiency (≈0.001–0.003 ms), confirming their suitability for embedded applications. Transformer-based hybrids underperformed, while approximately one-third of cells exhibited elevated errors linked to noise or regime shifts, underscoring the necessity of rigorous evaluation design. Collectively, these findings establish clear deployment guidelines: CNN–LSTM and GRU are recommended where robustness and accuracy are paramount (cloud and edge analytics), while LightGBM and CatBoost offer optimal latency–efficiency trade-offs for embedded controllers. Beyond model choice, the study highlights data curation and leakage-averse validation as critical enablers for transferable and reliable SOH estimation. This benchmarking framework provides a robust foundation for future integration of ML models into real-world battery management systems.
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 | 0.000 | 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".