Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Parameter Identification for Electrochemical Models of Lithium-Ion Batteries Using Bayesian Optimization

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2405.10750 v1 pith:66TUSDMD submitted 2024-05-17 eess.SY cs.LGcs.SY

classification eess.SYcs.LGcs.SY
keywords optimizationbayesianelectrochemicalmodelsparametergradient-basedidentificationlithium-ion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Efficient parameter identification of electrochemical models is crucial for accurate monitoring and control of lithium-ion cells. This process becomes challenging when applied to complex models that rely on a considerable number of interdependent parameters that affect the output response. Gradient-based and metaheuristic optimization techniques, although previously employed for this task, are limited by their lack of robustness, high computational costs, and susceptibility to local minima. In this study, Bayesian Optimization is used for tuning the dynamic parameters of an electrochemical equivalent circuit battery model (E-ECM) for a nickel-manganese-cobalt (NMC)-graphite cell. The performance of the Bayesian Optimization is compared with baseline methods based on gradient-based and metaheuristic approaches. The robustness of the parameter optimization method is tested by performing verification using an experimental drive cycle. The results indicate that Bayesian Optimization outperforms Gradient Descent and PSO optimization techniques, achieving reductions on average testing loss by 28.8% and 5.8%, respectively. Moreover, Bayesian optimization significantly reduces the variance in testing loss by 95.8% and 72.7%, respectively.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools