Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 39 references

A User-centric Game for Balancing V2G Benefits with Battery Degradation of Electric Vehicles

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A two-player game lets EV owners dial in their V2G-versus-battery-wear trade-off.

desk verdict A clean, incremental V2G trade-off paper whose horizon-splitting game is a genuinely usable idea; the offline battery temperature shortcut is the one real soft spot. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.11027 v2 pith:E4WUHTSI submitted 2025-05-16 eess.SY cs.SY

Arghya Mallick , Georgios Pantazis , Peyman Mohajerin Esfahani , Sergio Grammatico This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords vehicle-to-gridV2GbatterydegradationgeneralizedNashequilibriumexactpotentialgamesmartcharginghorizonsplittingconvexoptimization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper puts the vehicle-to-grid versus battery-wear decision in the hands of the EV owner through one integer dial. It models the conflicting goals of earning from V2G discharge and preserving battery health as two self-interested players in a game, then proves the game has an exact potential function, so solving one convex program yields a generalized Nash equilibrium. The user's dial w decides how many of the highest-price time intervals go to the revenue player and how many go to the degradation player, while constraints keep the final charge at the user's target. In the paper's numerical comparisons, this game-theoretic schedule is less sensitive to perturbations of the battery degradation parameters than a weighted multi-objective formulation and an MPC baseline, and it reaches the desired final energy in every tested setting.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the exact potential function $P(u) := \sum_{j\in T^w_m} \alpha_j P_{\mathrm{bat},j}\Delta t + \gamma \sum_{j\in \tilde T^w_m} Q^{\mathrm{cyc}}_{\mathrm{loss},j}(P_{\mathrm{bat},j})$ from Proposition 1. It makes the two players' selfish improvements point in the same direction as a single common objective, so the game's generalized Nash equilibria coincide with the minimizers of one convex program, (12). Supporting this, the paper replaces the non-smooth exponential cyclic-aging term of the empirical model with the smooth, power-quadratic approximation in (3), which keeps $P$ convex and cheap to solve while binding the degradation cost to the actual charging power.

What would settle it

Simulate the optimized schedule from (12) with the full coupled cabin–battery temperature equations, recompute the cyclic capacity loss with the resulting $T_b$, and compare it with the loss using the paper's precomputed temperature profile; if the difference is large enough to change the ordering of the trade-off curves in the paper's case studies, the central trade-off claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a user-centric V2G charging schedule can be computed as the equilibrium of a two-player game, not as a scalarized optimization over both objectives. Player V2G minimizes charging cost on a chosen set of time slots; player BD minimizes cyclic battery-capacity loss on the remaining slots. Proposition 1 shows the game is an exact generalized potential game, with potential function P(u) given in (11), so any global solution of the convex program (12) is a generalized Nash equilibrium. The horizon-splitting rule, assigning the w highest-price intervals to the V2G player and the rest to the degradation player, gives the user a single integer control over the trade-off, and constraint (8) ensures the final energy target is always met within tolerance.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme assumes the battery's temperature can be fixed in advance from a representative charging current rather than recomputed from the actual optimized schedule; if the real temperature under that schedule is materially different, the degradation costs and the trade-off curves shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An EV owner can choose any degree of V2G participation by setting a single integer $w$, and the resulting schedule still meets the user's desired final energy within tolerance.
  • Because the equilibrium is computed by a convex program, each 48-interval, 12-hour schedule solves in under 50 ms on a laptop-class processor, which the paper argues makes real-time embedded implementation feasible.
  • The reported sensitivity and regret comparisons imply that the game-theoretic schedule inherits robustness to uncertainty in the degradation parameters $B_1,B_2$ without needing an additional robustification layer.
  • The trade-off studies give concrete guidance: colder ambient temperatures and smaller battery capacities make aggressive V2G participation costlier in battery health, while high tariff volatility and higher-rated chargers make participation more financially attractive.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the offline-temperature assumption is nearly exact, the same exact-potential construction should extend to any convex, power-dependent battery wear model, because convexity is the only property the proof of Proposition 1 uses beyond compactness.
  • A direct test of the robustness claim would be to feed the optimized schedule back into the full coupled temperature dynamics and recompute degradation; until that loop is closed, the numerical robustness results are conditional on the precomputed temperature profile.
  • The horizon-splitting mechanism is a template for any two-sided scheduling problem with a monetary and a wear objective, and the price-sorting rule could be adapted to other signals such as carbon intensity or grid congestion.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a user-centric smart charging framework for vehicle-to-grid (V2G) services, formulated as a two-player generalized Nash game. One player maximizes V2G revenue, the other minimizes cyclic battery degradation, and the user selects a hyperparameter w that allocates time intervals between the two players. The authors show that the game is an exact potential game (Proposition 1), so a generalized Nash equilibrium can be obtained by solving the convex program (12). They compare this approach with a multi-objective formulation and an MPC baseline using sensitivity and regret metrics, and they present trade-off studies with respect to ambient temperature, tariff volatility, charger rating, battery capacity, and a one-year projection. The central claims are that the game-theoretic formulation is more robust to degradation-parameter uncertainty and that the parameter w gives EV users a practical, interpretable knob for balancing financial benefit against battery health.

Significance. If the technical issues are resolved, this is a useful contribution to user-centric V2G scheduling. The game-theoretic modeling of the trade-off is novel, the exact-potential characterization in Proposition 1 and Appendix B is sound, and reducing the equilibrium computation to the convex problem (12) is a genuine computational advantage. The paper also provides a broad numerical study that addresses practically relevant factors such as ambient temperature, charger rating, and battery capacity, which is valuable for guiding user decisions. However, the numerical results rest on several modeling approximations and parameter conventions that are not yet fully validated, and the headline robustness claim is partly built into the formulation. The paper would be suitable for publication after these issues are addressed and the numerical implementation is verified.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II.B, Eq. (4), and Section III.B] The battery temperature used in the degradation coefficients is computed offline from a representative current Î = ρ(Pmax/Vbat), but the promised elaboration of ρ in Section III.B never appears; Section III.B defines w and m and does not mention ρ, and Section III.C later reuses ρ as a multi-objective weight in (13). Because B1,t and B2,t in (3) are fixed from this offline Tb profile, the optimized schedule Pbat,t does not feed back into the degradation cost. A high-w solution assigns more high-price intervals to the V2G player and therefore increases the average |Pbat,t| and the heat term Q = I²Rint; fixing Tb from a single ρ will under-estimate degradation for large w and over-estimate it for small w, systematically biasing the trade-off curves in Figs. 4-7 and the one-year projection in Fig. 9. Please couple Tb to the decision variables, or provide a concrete test showing that the degradation results are insensitive to the schedule used for the offline computation, and state explicitly how ρ relates to w.
  2. [Section IV.B, Eqs. (14)-(16), Fig. 3] The headline robustness result is partly built into the game formulation. In the perturbed potential P~(u,ζ), the uncertainty ζ is assumed to affect only the degradation term Qcyc, which appears in P only on the intervals assigned to the BD player; the V2G player's objective terms in (11) have no ζ dependence. Consequently, the V2G player's decision variables are ζ-invariant by construction, so the sensitivity Sgt and regret Rgt in (15)-(16) are mechanically bounded. This does not invalidate the comparison with the multi-objective formulation (13), but the claim that the game is 'significantly more robust' should be qualified as a property of the hard time-slot partition rather than an empirical discovery. To make the comparison informative, the authors should also perturb quantities that affect both approaches symmetrically, such as the price coefficients αt or all degradation coefficients over the entire horizon.
  3. [Section II.A, Table I, and Section IV.A] There is a serious parameter/unit inconsistency in the degradation model. With Tb in kelvin as stated, the Table I constants give B1(298 K) = 8.61e-6·298² - 5.13e-3·298 + 0.763 ≈ -0.0011, so the cyclic capacity loss in (3) would be negative at typical operating temperatures, and the quadratic term in P would be concave rather than convex, contradicting the convexity argument used for (12). This is only physically meaningful if the temperature in (2b)-(2c) is in Celsius as in the original reference [16]; please correct the unit statement and re-verify all numerical results. Relatedly, Eq. (3) and Appendix A define Vbat as the terminal voltage of a single cell, while Section IV.A states that the terminal voltage of the battery pack is 350 V; using the pack voltage in (3) changes the computed C-rate by a factor of approximately nseries and would alter the degradation magnitudes in Figs. 4-9. Please confirm which convention was actually used in the code.
  4. [Section II.A, Eq. (3), Appendix A] The smooth approximation exp(α|x|) ≈ 1 + α²x²/h with h = 0.0465 is used without an accuracy assessment. The paper does not report the approximation error over the C-rates and temperatures actually encountered in the case studies, e.g., Pbat up to 22 kW with the pack parameters in Section IV.A. Since all degradation costs and resulting trade-off curves are computed with (3), a quantitative validation of the approximation error over the operating envelope should be provided.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Notation (Sections II.B and III.C)] The symbol ρ denotes a user participation level in the temperature model in Section II.B and a convex-combination weight in (13); using the same symbol for two different quantities is confusing even if the promised elaboration were provided.
  2. [Appendix B] In the second half of the proof of Proposition 1, 'given x2,y2∈Ω1(u−2)' should read 'x2,y2∈Ω2(u−2)'.
  3. [Section III.C] The perturbation support set is written inconsistently as '[a,a]' and '[a,a]'; likely ̲a and ̄a are intended.
  4. [Section IV.E] The one-year projection does not state whether the coefficients B1,t/B2,t and the battery capacity are updated as degradation accumulates; if they are kept constant, that approximation should be stated explicitly and ideally justified.
  5. [Section IV.B, Fig. 3] The text should clarify how the discrete sweep over w for the game-theoretic method is aligned with the continuous sweep over ρ for the multi-objective method so that the sensitivity and regret box plots are directly comparable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the game, potential function, and robustness metrics are derived from external models and explicit constructions, not from their own conclusions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The degradation model (2)-(3) is imported from the external empirical work [16] and smoothed in Appendix A; the temperature dynamics (4) come from [11]/[22]. The game in (9)-(10) is explicitly defined, and Proposition 1 proves the exact-potential property by a direct algebraic check in Appendix B; the potential function is constructed as the sum of the players' objectives, so the GNE equivalence in (12) is a standard potential-game result rather than a conclusion that re-imports its own premise. The robustness comparison in Section III.C uses conventional sensitivity (15) and regret (16) metrics evaluated against the same objectives that each method minimizes; the lower sensitivity of the game solution is a structural property of the horizon split, not a fitted parameter relabelled as a prediction. The paper's self-citation [21] is a remark about an alternative degradation model and is not load-bearing. The Section II.B treatment of T_b as a precomputed parameter, the unresolved rho/w relationship, and the acknowledged need for an adaptive temperature mechanism are modeling limitations and internal inconsistencies, but none of them makes a derived quantity equal to an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on an external empirical degradation model, a simplified thermal model with several ad hoc assumptions, and a fitted smoothing parameter. No new physical entities are introduced. The most consequential, weakly supported premise is the decoupling of battery temperature from the optimized power schedule.

free parameters (3)
  • h = 0.0465
    Curve-fitting parameter in the smooth approximation of the cyclic aging exponential in Eq. (3); chosen to match Eq. (2a) from [16].
  • gamma (battery degradation cost weight) = 585 e/kWhr
    Computed in Section IV.A from battery pack cost (207 e/kWh), second-life resale value (45 e/kWh), and the 30% capacity threshold. Scales the battery-degradation player's objective in Eq. (10).
  • rho (temperature participation level) = not specified
    User-defined hyperparameter in Section II.B used to set the representative current Î = ρ(Pmax/Vbat) for the offline temperature profile. Its relationship to the game hyperparameter w is never defined.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The empirical calendar and cyclic aging model of [16] (Eqs. (1)-(2)) accurately describes capacity loss for the battery pack.
    The entire degradation cost in the BD player's objective rests on this external model; the paper cites [12] for validation but does not verify it here.
  • ad hoc to paper Thermal simplifications in Section II.B: qrad = 0, qhvac = 0, and qbtms = -0.9Q.
    These assumptions are imposed because detailed vehicle and sensor data are unavailable; they directly affect the computed Tb and therefore all degradation costs.
  • ad hoc to paper The battery temperature Tb can be approximated by an offline profile computed with a representative current, independent of the optimized power schedule.
    This is the key decoupling assumption made in Section II.B; physically Tb depends on the decision variable Pbat,t.
  • ad hoc to paper The smooth approximation exp(α|x|) ≈ 1 + α²x²/h with h = 0.0465 is accurate over the operating C-rate range.
    Used to derive Eq. (3) in Appendix A; the approximation error is not quantified.
  • domain assumption The V2G tariff profile from Fig. 7 of [27] is representative of dynamic grid-service prices.
    All numerical studies use this external profile or samples derived from it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A User-centric Game for Balancing V2G Benefits with Battery Degradation of Electric Vehicles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E4WUHTSI

@misc{pith2026250511027,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A User-centric Game for Balancing V2G Benefits with Battery Degradation of Electric Vehicles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E4WUHTSI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.11027}
}
read the original abstract

We present a novel user-centric vehicle-to-grid (V2G) framework that enables electric vehicle (EV) users to balance the trade-off between financial benefits from V2G and battery health degradation based on individual preference signals.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.11027 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Evolution of battery temperature (Tb) with respect to ambient temperature (Ta). III. A GAME-THEORETIC APPROACH TO BALANCE V2G PARTICIPATION LEVEL WITH BATTERY DEGRADATION A. Preliminaries on game theory To model the trade-off between the V2G exploitation and battery degradation, we consider a non-cooperative game between N = 2 players, indexed by i ∈ I := {1, 2}. Each player i makes decisions u i ∈ R ni in the feasi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Assuming T = 4 and w = 3, the allocation of time intervals to both players is shown. Player V2G gets 3 intervals of relatively higher V2G price (αt), and the remaining interval goes to player BD. Thanks to the convexity and compactness of the problem data, there always exists a GNE solution for our model. Furthermore, we show next that our game G¯ in (9), (10) is an exact potential game [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/ful… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Box plots on the sensitivity of the solution profiles for the game-theoretic and multi-objective approaches, (b) box plot for regret evaluation of both approaches. desired energy level of the battery (Edes) is 0.9 (in p.u.). The capacity of a single cell battery Crated is 1.5 Ah. Different parameters for 50 kWh battery pack are nseries, nparallel, and nmax with the values of 83, 94, and 5.28 respectively. The te… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Trade-off curve for comparison between charging cost and cyclic battery degradation cost while taking part in V2G for different Ta. The markers along the curve indicate discrete solutions of (12) for decreasing values of w. minimizing the V2G charging cost without bein…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Profiles of V2G tariff (αt) for different variances, (b) trade-off curve for comparison between charging cost and cyclic battery degradation cost while taking part in V2G for different variances in αt. lot and the ancillary service requirements of local distributio…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The capacity loss for different choices of w by the user under different Ta. 2) Impact of Varying V2G Tariff Profiles: The V2G tariff profile αt can exhibit different levels of variance depending on the flexibility available at the charging station or parking (a) (b) …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Trade-off curve for comparison between charging cost and cyclic battery degradation cost for chargers of different power ratings [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Smart charging profiles for different choices of w. D. Smart Charging Profiles of EVs Figures 4 illustrate how users can select their desired oper￾ating point by adjusting the hyperparameter w in our proposed framework [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of power and energy profiles based on: 1) MPC-based method [14] (solid violet) and 2) our proposed method (dashed orange). Both methods respect power constraints and reach the desired final energy Edes of 0.8, as set by the user. we aim to validate our theo…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) Trade-off curve of the one-year-long projection study where the EV battery capacities are varied, and (b) the corresponding battery capacity losses as the user-defined hyperparameter w varies. contrary, when we evaluate regret (following the definitions in (16)) fo…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a) Box plot for comparison of the total cost between MPC￾based method [14] and the proposed method when ζ in θ 2 (·) is perturbed, (b) box plot in logarithmic scale for comparison of the regret metric (following (16)) between these methods. more computationally effic…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    J. Wang, J. Purewal, P. Liu, J. Hicks-Garner, S. Soukazian, E. Sherman, A. Sorenson, L. Vu, H. Tataria, and M. W. Verbrugge, “Degradation of lithium ion batteries employing graphite negatives and nickel–cobalt– manganese oxide+ spinel manganese oxide positives: Part 1, aging mechanisms and life estimation,” Journal of Power Sources , vol. 269, pp. 937–948, 2014

    work page 2014

  2. [1]

    Re-examining rates of lithium-ion battery technology improvement and cost decline,

    M. S. Ziegler and J. E. Trancik, “Re-examining rates of lithium-ion battery technology improvement and cost decline,” Energy & Environ- mental Science, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1635–1651, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [2]

    The role of critical minerals in clean energy transitions,

    IEA, “The role of critical minerals in clean energy transitions,” Online available in: ‘https://www.iea.org/reports/ the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions’, 2022, accessed: 16/08/2024

    work page 2022

  4. [3]

    Opportunities and challenges of vehicle-to-home, vehicle-to-vehicle, and vehicle-to-grid technologies,

    C. Liu, K. Chau, D. Wu, and S. Gao, “Opportunities and challenges of vehicle-to-home, vehicle-to-vehicle, and vehicle-to-grid technologies,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 101, no. 11, pp. 2409–2427, 2013

    2013

  5. [4]

    On the potential of vehicle-to-grid and second-life batteries to provide energy and material security,

    F. Aguilar Lopez, D. Lauinger, F. Vuille, and D. B. M ¨uller, “On the potential of vehicle-to-grid and second-life batteries to provide energy and material security,” Nature Communications, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 4179, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [5]

    Electric vehicle batteries alone could satisfy short-term grid storage demand by as early as 2030,

    C. Xu, P. Behrens, P. Gasper, K. Smith, M. Hu, A. Tukker, and B. Steubing, “Electric vehicle batteries alone could satisfy short-term grid storage demand by as early as 2030,” Nature Communications , vol. 14, no. 1, p. 119, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [6]

    Electric vehicles as a new power source for electric utilities,

    W. Kempton and S. E. Letendre, “Electric vehicles as a new power source for electric utilities,” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 157–175, 1997

    work page 1997

  8. [7]

    Vehicle-to-grid demonstration project: Grid regu- lation ancillary service with a battery electric vehicle,

    A. N. Brooks et al., “Vehicle-to-grid demonstration project: Grid regu- lation ancillary service with a battery electric vehicle,” 2002

    work page 2002

Show all 39 references
  1. [8]

    V2G Hub,

    “V2G Hub,” UK Power Networks, Online available in: ‘https://www. v2g-hub.com/’, 2023, accessed: 16/08/2024

    2023

  2. [9]

    Factors influencing consumer acceptance of vehicle-to- grid by electric vehicle drivers in the Netherlands,

    K. van Heuveln, R. Ghotge, J. A. Annema, E. van Bergen, B. van Wee, and U. Pesch, “Factors influencing consumer acceptance of vehicle-to- grid by electric vehicle drivers in the Netherlands,” Travel Behaviour and Society, vol. 24, pp. 34–45, 2021

    2021

  3. [10]

    Evaluating the impact of V2G services on the degradation of batteries in PHEV and EV,

    J. D. Bishop, C. J. Axon, D. Bonilla, M. Tran, D. Banister, and M. D. McCulloch, “Evaluating the impact of V2G services on the degradation of batteries in PHEV and EV,” Applied energy, vol. 111, pp. 206–218, 2013. 12

    2013

  4. [11]

    Quantifying electric vehicle battery degradation from driving vs. vehicle-to-grid services,

    D. Wang, J. Coignard, T. Zeng, C. Zhang, and S. Saxena, “Quantifying electric vehicle battery degradation from driving vs. vehicle-to-grid services,” Journal of Power Sources , vol. 332, pp. 193–203, 2016

    2016

  5. [12]

    Empirical capacity measurements of electric vehicles subject to battery degrada- tion from V2G services,

    A. Thingvad, L. Calearo, P. B. Andersen, and M. Marinelli, “Empirical capacity measurements of electric vehicles subject to battery degrada- tion from V2G services,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology , vol. 70, no. 8, pp. 7547–7557, 2021

    2021

  6. [13]

    A predictive two-stage user-centered algorithm for smart charging of plug-in electric vehicles considering the state of health of the battery,

    R. Razi, K. Hajar, A. Hably, M. Gholami, S. Bacha, M. Mehrasa, A. Labonne, and H. Turker, “A predictive two-stage user-centered algorithm for smart charging of plug-in electric vehicles considering the state of health of the battery,” IEEE Transactions on Transportation Electr...

    2023

  7. [14]

    A coordinated model predictive control-based approach for vehicle-to-grid scheduling considering range anxiety and battery degradation,

    C.-F. Lu, G.-P. Liu, Y . Yu, and J. Cui, “A coordinated model predictive control-based approach for vehicle-to-grid scheduling considering range anxiety and battery degradation,” IEEE Transactions on Transportation Electrification, 2024

    2024

  8. [15]

    Enhancing smart charging in electric vehicles by addressing paused and delayed charging problems,

    N. Brinkel, T. van Wijk, A. Buijze, N. K. Panda, J. Meersmans, P. Markoti´c, B. van der Ree, H. Fidder, B. de Brey, S. Tindemans et al., “Enhancing smart charging in electric vehicles by addressing paused and delayed charging problems,” Nature Communications, vol. 15, no. 1, p...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Multimodal physics-based aging model for life prediction of Li-ion batteries,

    M. Safari, M. Morcrette, A. Teyssot, and C. Delacourt, “Multimodal physics-based aging model for life prediction of Li-ion batteries,” Journal of The Electrochemical Society , vol. 156, no. 3, p. A145, 2008

    2008

  10. [18]

    Identifying degradation patterns of lithium ion batteries from impedance spectroscopy using machine learning,

    Y . Zhang, Q. Tang, Y . Zhang, J. Wang, U. Stimming, and A. A. Lee, “Identifying degradation patterns of lithium ion batteries from impedance spectroscopy using machine learning,” Nature communica- tions, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 1706, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Data-driven prediction of battery cycle life before capacity degradation,

    K. A. Severson, P. M. Attia, N. Jin, N. Perkins, B. Jiang, Z. Yang, M. H. Chen, M. Aykol, P. K. Herring, D. Fraggedakis et al. , “Data-driven prediction of battery cycle life before capacity degradation,” Nature Energy, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 383–391, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    Com- parison of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle battery life across geographies and drive-cycles,

    K. Smith, M. Earleywine, E. Wood, J. Neubauer, and A. Pesaran, “Com- parison of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle battery life across geographies and drive-cycles,” National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO (United States), Tech. Rep., 2012

    2012

  13. [21]

    User-centric vehicle-to-grid optimization with an input con- vex neural network-based battery degradation model,

    A. Mallick, G. Pantazis, M. Khosravi, P. M. Esfahani, and S. Gram- matico, “User-centric vehicle-to-grid optimization with an input con- vex neural network-based battery degradation model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.11047 (accepted in: 2025 IEEE 21st International Confer- ence...

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Thru-life impacts of driver aggression, climate, cabin thermal management, and battery thermal management on battery electric vehicle utility,

    J. Neubauer and E. Wood, “Thru-life impacts of driver aggression, climate, cabin thermal management, and battery thermal management on battery electric vehicle utility,” Journal of Power Sources , vol. 259, pp. 262–275, 2014

    2014

  15. [23]

    A review on recent progress, challenges and perspective of battery thermal management system,

    J. Lin, X. Liu, S. Li, C. Zhang, and S. Yang, “A review on recent progress, challenges and perspective of battery thermal management system,” International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer , vol. 167, p. 120834, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    NASA power,

    “NASA power,” Online available in: https://power.larc.nasa.gov/ data-access-viewer/, accessed: 2025-05-29

    2025

  17. [25]

    Generalized Nash equilibrium problems,

    F. Facchinei and C. Kanzow, “Generalized Nash equilibrium problems,” Annals of Operations Research , vol. 175, no. 1, pp. 177–211, 2010

    2010

  18. [26]

    Decomposition algo- rithms for generalized potential games,

    F. Facchinei, V . Piccialli, and M. Sciandrone, “Decomposition algo- rithms for generalized potential games,” Computational Optimization and Applications, vol. 50, pp. 237–262, 2011

    2011

  19. [27]

    Pricing for electric vehicle charging stations based on the responsiveness of demand,

    S. Lai, J. Qiu, Y . Tao, and J. Zhao, “Pricing for electric vehicle charging stations based on the responsiveness of demand,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 530–544, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Effects of state of charge on the degradation of lifepo4/graphite batteries during accelerated storage test,

    Y . Zheng, Y .-B. He, K. Qian, B. Li, X. Wang, J. Li, C. Miao, and F. Kang, “Effects of state of charge on the degradation of lifepo4/graphite batteries during accelerated storage test,” Journal of Alloys and Compounds , vol. 639, pp. 406–414, 2015

    2015

  21. [29]

    Rahman and T

    T. Rahman and T. Alharbi, “Exploring lithium-ion battery degradation: A concise review of critical factors, impacts, data-driven degradation estimation techniques, and sustainable directions for energy storage systems,” Batteries, vol. 10, no. 7, p. 220, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    M. L. Bynum, G. A. Hackebeil, W. E. Hart, C. D. Laird, B. L. Nicholson, J. D. Siirola, J.-P. Watson, and D. L. Woodruff, Pyomo–optimization modeling in python, 3rd ed. Springer Science & Business Media, 2021, vol. 67

    2021

  23. [31]

    ApS, The MOSEK optimization toolbox , 2019

    M. ApS, The MOSEK optimization toolbox , 2019. [Online]. Available: http://docs.mosek.com/9.0/toolbox/index.html

    2019

  24. [32]

    A review of bidirectional on-board chargers for electric vehicles,

    J. Yuan, L. Dorn-Gomba, A. D. Callegaro, J. Reimers, and A. Emadi, “A review of bidirectional on-board chargers for electric vehicles,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 51 501–51 518, 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    A comprehensive overview of electric vehicle batteries market,

    F. Mohammadi and M. Saif, “A comprehensive overview of electric vehicle batteries market,” e-Prime-Advances in Electrical Engineering, Electronics and Energy, vol. 3, p. 100127, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    A bottom-up approach to lithium-ion battery cost modeling with a focus on cathode active materials,

    M. Wentker, M. Greenwood, and J. Leker, “A bottom-up approach to lithium-ion battery cost modeling with a focus on cathode active materials,” Energies, vol. 12, no. 3, p. 504, 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    Procedure for assessing the suitability of battery second life applications after EV first life,

    T. Montes, M. Etxandi-Santolaya, J. Eichman, V . J. Ferreira, L. Trilla, and C. Corchero, “Procedure for assessing the suitability of battery second life applications after EV first life,” Batteries, vol. 8, no. 9, p. 122, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Battery warm-up methodologies at subzero temperatures for automotive applications: Recent advances and perspectives,

    X. Hu, Y . Zheng, D. A. Howey, H. Perez, A. Foley, and M. Pecht, “Battery warm-up methodologies at subzero temperatures for automotive applications: Recent advances and perspectives,” Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, vol. 77, p. 100806, 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    Added value of individual flexibility profiles of electric vehicle users for ancillary services,

    P. B. Andersen, T. Sousa, A. Thingvad, L. S. Berthou, and M. Ku- lahci, “Added value of individual flexibility profiles of electric vehicle users for ancillary services,” in 2018 IEEE international conference on communications, control, and computing technologies for smart gri...

    2018

  30. [38]

    Meteorological data portal,

    “Meteorological data portal,” Online available in: https://www.tudelft.nl/en/ewi/over-de-faculteit/afdelingen/ electrical-sustainable-energy/photovoltaic-materials-and-devices/ dutch-pv-portal/meteorological-data, accessed: 2024-07-10

    2024

  31. [39]

    A comprehensive review on the characteristics and modeling of lithium-ion battery aging,

    W. Vermeer, G. R. C. Mouli, and P. Bauer, “A comprehensive review on the characteristics and modeling of lithium-ion battery aging,” IEEE Transactions on Transportation Electrification , vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 2205– 2232, 2021

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.