Active cell balancing in battery management using AI algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the rising adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) and renewable energy technologies, managing battery systems efficiently has become essential to ensure enhanced performance, reliability, and longevity of battery energy storage systems (BESS). One key technique in this context is active cell balancing, which ensures that all cells within a battery pack maintain consistent charge levels, thereby avoiding issues such as overcharging or deep discharging individual cells. However, conventional balancing approaches typically fall short when it comes to adaptability and responsiveness under varying operational conditions. To overcome these challenges, this research explores the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) methods into active cell balancing frameworks. By utilizing AI techniques including reinforcement learning, neural networks, and fuzzy logic, the system can learn and anticipate cell behavior, dynamically regulate balancing currents, and respond effectively to real-time changes. This intelligent balancing method enhances the uniformity of the state of charge (SoC), improves thermal management, and ultimately increases the overall efficiency and lifespan of the battery pack. Simulated outcomes and comparative assessments validate the superiority of the AI-based approach over traditional methods, pointing to its potential in shaping future intelligent 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".