Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 24 references

Battery State of Health Estimation Using LLM Framework

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims its BERT-style LLM framework estimates battery state of health with MAE as low as 0.87%.

desk verdict The paper's headline result (0.81% MAE) is directly contradicted by its own Section VI evaluation, which reports a negative R2 and a test MSE of 654k; the submission is not ready for review. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18123 v1 pith:AON7JOXT submitted 2025-01-30 cs.LG eess.SP

Aybars Yunusoglu , Dexter Le , Karn Tiwari , Murat Isik , I. Can Dikmen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGeess.SP
keywords batterystateofhealthremainingusefullifelithiumtitanatetransformerlargelanguagemodeldifferentialvoltageanalysisBERTregressioncapacityfade
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 tries to establish that a transformer-based LLM framework, which serializes battery measurement rows into text and fine-tunes a BERT-style regression head, can estimate the State of Health (SoH) of lithium titanate cells and predict their Remaining Useful Life (RUL) more accurately than conventional baselines. The claim matters because accurate, early capacity-fade detection would let EV owners and fleet operators schedule maintenance before sudden battery failure. The paper reports an MAE as low as 0.87% (0.81% in its comparison table) across eight LTO cells over 500 cycles, based on cycle-integrated capacity data plus instantaneous discharge measurements and Differential Voltage Analysis. The paper's own Section VI evaluation, run for five epochs, instead produced a negative $R^2$ and a test MSE near 654,173, a discrepancy the paper does not explain.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the BERT regression model: each battery row is converted into a text string, tokenized with the BERT tokenizer (padding or truncating to 128 tokens), passed through the transformer, and the 768-dimensional [CLS] embedding is projected through a linear layer to a scalar capacity value, trained with MSE loss and the AdamW optimizer. Differential Voltage Analysis ($dQ/dV$) is the auxiliary feature-extraction mechanism used to track capacity-fade regions, such as the 2.25-2.30 V window where stored energy falls from 40 mAh at cycle 50 to 28 mAh at cycle 500. Multi-head self-attention and positional encoding are the components the paper credits with capturing long-term dependencies across charge-discharge cycles.

What would settle it

Re-run the described pipeline (80/20 split, BERT tokenizer, 128-token maximum, five epochs, MSE loss) on the same eight LTO cells and record test MAE and $R^2$; reproducing Section VI's negative $R^2$ and test MSE near 654,173 instead of Table I's 0.81% would falsify the claimed superiority.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a BERT-style transformer regressor, fed with tokenized battery rows, predicts capacity fade accurately enough for predictive maintenance: Table I reports 0.81% MAE versus 21.00%, 8.74%, 4.27%, and 10.31% for GPR, RD, SVR, and CNN, and the abstract states an MAE as low as 0.87%. The framework is presented as multimodal, combining cycle-level capacity data with instantaneous discharge voltage readings, using DVA $dQ/dV$ analysis to expose aging signals in specific voltage windows, flagging anomalous voltage patterns as early degradation, and estimating RUL by fitting a quadratic to the SoH curve and solving for the cycle where SoH reaches 80%. On the paper's own account, this would make LLM-style regression a strong option for battery health monitoring, with the caveat that its Section VI experiment reports a negative $R^2$ and a test MSE near 654,173, indicating the model underperformed a simple mean baseline in that run.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that Table I's MAE of 0.81% and the abstract's 0.87% come from the same model and data pipeline described in the paper; Section VI's five-epoch run with negative $R^2$ and test MSE near 654,173 is not reconciled with those figures anywhere in the paper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claimed accuracy holds, the tokenized-text transformer would beat Gaussian process regression, random decision trees, support vector regression, and a CNN by a wide margin on this eight-cell LTO dataset.
  • The anomaly-detection output could be used to schedule maintenance before capacity drops below the 80% threshold that defines end of useful life.
  • The table's longer processing time (61.17 seconds versus 22-34.5 seconds for the baselines) implies the framework is best suited to offline or cloud-assisted analysis unless inference is optimized.
  • DVA features tied to specific voltage windows would give the model a physical handle on which phase transitions drive aging.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The gap between Table I and Section VI suggests the reported 0.81% figure may come from an undocumented split, epoch count, or feature set; fixing those choices and reporting both MAE and $R^2$ would settle which description matches the real model.
  • If the result is replicated, text-serialization of tabular battery data would offer a generic transfer baseline for capacity-fade regression, but the 61-second inference time means practical value likely depends on pruning, quantization, or edge-cloud splitting.
  • Because the paper's 'LLM' is a fine-tuned BERT regressor rather than a generative model, any real gain would come from pretrained language representations applied to numeric tokens, not from reasoning; a same-size randomly initialized transformer would isolate that source.
  • The same $dQ/dV$ tokenization could be tested on incremental-capacity curves from other chemistries such as NMC or LFP without changing the framework.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a transformer-based, BERT-style LLM framework for estimating the State of Health (SoH) and Remaining Useful Life (RUL) of LTO battery cells, using tokenized rows of discharge/charge data, Differential Voltage Analysis, and a regression head. The abstract claims an MAE as low as 0.87%, and Table I reports 0.81% for the LLM against 21.00%, 8.74%, 4.27%, and 10.31% for GPR, RD, SVR, and CNN, respectively. The evaluation section, however, reports a five-epoch run with training loss 655,290.26, test loss 654,172.73, and a negative R2 score, which the paper itself describes as underperforming a simple mean baseline. The RUL estimation in Eq. (4) is a quadratic polynomial fitted to past SoH data, and the pipeline descriptions in Figures 1-4 repeatedly target SoC prediction rather than SoH or RUL.

Significance. If the reported sub-1% MAE were reproducible, this would be a notable empirical result for LLM-based battery health estimation. The paper, however, provides no reproducible procedure, and its own Section VI results directly contradict the headline accuracy. The contribution is therefore not currently assessable as a valid empirical claim. No code, data, hyperparameters, or detailed split information are provided, and the RUL method reduces to a polynomial curve fit rather than a learned prediction. The paper's strength is that it identifies a plausible idea (tokenizing battery rows for a transformer regression head), but the evidence presented does not support the claimed performance.

major comments (4)
  1. [§VI vs. Table I and Abstract] The central claim is internally contradicted. Section VI reports the results of the BERT regression model after five epochs: training loss (MSE) 655,290.2594, test loss (MSE) 654,172.7254, and an explicitly negative R2 score, with the text stating that the model underperformed a simple mean baseline. Table I, however, reports 'Our LLM' with an MAE of 0.81%, and the abstract claims an MAE as low as 0.87%. These two results cannot both describe the same finished framework unless they come from different data, splits, epochs, feature sets, or metrics, none of which is documented anywhere in the manuscript. Because the paper's headline claim is the 'superior performance' of the LLM, this contradiction is load-bearing and unsupported.
  2. [§V (Model) and §VI (Evaluation)] The manuscript does not provide a reproducible procedure for obtaining the Table I result. The data splitting is described only as an '80-20 split' with no seed, no indication of which cycles or cells form the test set, and no reporting of the number of epochs, learning rate, batch size, or other hyperparameters used for the LLM results in Table I. The tokenization is described (BERT tokenizer, max length 128), but the feature set and text template are not fully specified. Given that Section VI describes a run with a negative R2 and a test MSE exceeding 654,000, the reader has no way to determine what configuration produced the claimed 0.81% MAE, so the empirical result is not reproducible from the manuscript.
  3. [§III-B, Eq. (4)] The RUL estimation procedure is a quadratic regression fit, SoH(C) = aC^2 + bC + c, fitted to past SoH data and then solved for C_end at SoH = 80. This is an in-sample polynomial fit to the capacity-fade curve, not a learned prediction from the LLM, and no validation is shown for extrapolated cycles. The paper presents this as the LLM's RUL prediction, but the method as written would work identically without the transformer framework, and it does not support the claim that the LLM 'estimates' remaining useful life.
  4. [§IV and §V, Figures 1-4] The pipeline descriptions and figures repeatedly target State of Charge (SoC) prediction rather than SoH or RUL. Figure 1 is titled 'State of Charge (SoC) Prediction', Figure 2 is an 'End-to-End Pipeline for State of Charge (SoC) Prediction', Figure 3 targets 'SoC prediction', Figure 4 targets 'SoC Prediction', and Section V states that the output layer 'Generates SoC predictions'. If these figures and text describe the actual implemented framework, then the experiments are not aligned with the paper's stated SoH/RUL objective. If they are generic illustrations, their presence is misleading and must be corrected with task-specific descriptions.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract vs. Table I] The abstract reports an MAE 'as low as 0.87%' while Table I reports 0.81% for the same method; these numbers should be reconciled and the exact metric definition given.
  2. [§V, paragraph 8] The text refers to 'Phyton's logging module' and later to 'converter-based approaches'; these appear to be typos for 'Python' and 'transformer-based' respectively.
  3. [§III-A, Eq. (1)] The differential voltage analysis formula is presented as dQ/dV, but the surrounding text refers to 'differential capacity' and 'dQ per unit voltage change'; the terminology should be made consistent with the standard DVA definition and with the later dQ/dV notation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity in the central empirical MAE claim; the sole derivation-like chain (RUL via Eq. 4) is a quadratic fit renamed as prediction, and Section VI's negative R2 contradicts Table I without circularity.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III-B, Equations (3) and (4)]
    "The LLM models this using polynomial regression on the SoH curve: SoH(C) = aC^2 + bC + c (4) Here, a, b and c are coefficients obtained by fitting the model to past SoH data. C, on the other hand, represents the cycle number. This model can predict the approximate cycle for the end of the battery's useful life when solved for (C_end)."

    C_end is not independently predicted: it is the root of the same quadratic that was least-squares fitted to the past SoH curve. Solving SoH(C_end)=80 for C_end is a deterministic transform of the fitted coefficients, so the 'RUL prediction' is the fit by construction. No held-out RUL validation is reported, and the LLM plays no role in Eq. (4); the claimed LLM-based RUL prediction reduces to a polynomial extrapolation of the input SoH data.

full rationale

The paper's headline claim is an empirical MAE comparison (abstract 0.87%, Table I 0.81%), and no equation in the paper derives that number from its inputs; the claim is therefore not circular, though Section VI's reported five-epoch run (training MSE 655,290.26, test MSE 654,172.73, negative R2) is in direct tension with Table I and is a correctness/reproducibility problem, not a circularity one. The only derivation-like chain is RUL estimation in Section III-B, where Eq. (4) fits a quadratic to past SoH data and then 'predicts' C_end by solving SoH(C_end)=80; this is a fitted quantity presented as a prediction, so it is a minor circular step. Self-citations [2], [16], and [24] supply background and the dataset, but they are not load-bearing for the numerical SoH results, and the dataset is the authors' own experimental data rather than an imported theorem. Overall circularity is low: the central claimed result is an empirical benchmark result with independent content, even if its evidence is internally inconsistent.

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

The central claim rests primarily on an unreported evaluation protocol and a self-hosted dataset; the only explicit free parameters are the polynomial fit and the enormous BERT regression weights, while the axioms are standard battery definitions plus an unexamined text-encoding assumption.

free parameters (3)
  • Quadratic SoH coefficients a, b, c = not reported
    Fitted to past SoH data in Eq. (4); used to solve Eq. (3) for end-of-life cycle. This is a fit to the training curve, not an independent prediction.
  • BERT regression trainable weights = 109,483,009
    The model's 109M parameters are fitted to the training split with AdamW and MSE loss; no checkpoints or architecture details are provided, so the reported MAE cannot be audited.
  • Training hyperparameters = partially unspecified (5 epochs, 128 token max are mentioned)
    Learning rate, batch size, optimizer settings, and data-split details are not fully reported; Section VI's failed run suggests the headline result must rely on different settings that are not disclosed.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SoH is defined as the ratio of current charge capacity to nominal capacity (Eq. 2).
    Standard SoH definition in battery literature; adopted without justification.
  • domain assumption End of useful life occurs when SoH drops below 80% (Eq. 3).
    Industry-standard threshold; stated without empirical support for LTO cells.
  • standard math DVA relation dQ/dV as a derivative (Eq. 1).
    Definition of differential capacity; the paper does not show how the LLM uses it.
  • ad hoc to paper Converting battery rows to text preserves the quantitative information needed for regression.
    The BERT tokenizer is applied to concatenated column values; no analysis or ablations demonstrate that this encoding preserves capacity-magnitude relationships.
  • domain assumption The LTO dataset of reference [24] is accurate and representative.
    All results depend on this dataset; no independent validation or preprocessing details are provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Battery State of Health Estimation Using LLM Framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AON7JOXT

@misc{pith2026250118123,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Battery State of Health Estimation Using LLM Framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AON7JOXT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18123}
}
read the original abstract

Battery health monitoring is critical for the efficient and reliable operation of electric vehicles (EVs). This study introduces a transformer-based framework for estimating the State of Health (SoH) and predicting the Remaining Useful Life (RUL) of lithium titanate (LTO) battery cells by utilizing both cycle-based and instantaneous discharge data. Testing on eight LTO cells under various cycling conditions over 500 cycles, we demonstrate the impact of charge durations on energy storage trends and apply Differential Voltage Analysis (DVA) to monitor capacity changes (dQ/dV) across voltage ranges. Our LLM model achieves superior performance, with a Mean Absolute Error (MAE) as low as 0.87\% and varied latency metrics that support efficient processing, demonstrating its strong potential for real-time integration into EVs. The framework effectively identifies early signs of degradation through anomaly detection in high-resolution data, facilitating predictive maintenance to prevent sudden battery failures and enhance energy efficiency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18123 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Pipeline for State of Charge (SoC) Prediction Using Multi-Input Regression with Schema-Based Data Processing and Model Evaluation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. End-to-End Pipeline for State of Charge (SoC) Prediction: Data Handling, Model Training & Validation, and Evaluation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Pipeline for Multi-Input Regression Model in Battery State Estimation: Data Handling, Training, and Evaluation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Pipeline for Multi-Input Regression Model Training and SoC Prediction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [18]

    Adapting Amidst Degradation: Cross Domain Li-ion Battery Health Estimation via Physics-Guided Test-Time Training

    Y . Feng, G. Hu, and Z. Zhang, “Gpt4battery: An llm-driven framework for adaptive state of health estimation of raw li-ion batteries,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.00068, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Lithium titanate oxide battery cells for high-power automotive applications – electro- thermal properties, aging behavior and cost considerations,

    T. Nemeth, P. Schröer, M. Kuipers, and D. U. Sauer, “Lithium titanate oxide battery cells for high-power automotive applications – electro- thermal properties, aging behavior and cost considerations,” The Journal of Energy Storage , vol. 31, p. 101656, 10 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    Multimodal llm for intelligent transportation systems,

    D. Le, A. Yunusoglu, K. Tiwari, M. Isik, and I. Dikmen, “Multimodal llm for intelligent transportation systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.11683 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  4. [3]

    Lithium titanate battery system enables hybrid electric heavy-duty vehicles,

    G. Dang, M. Zhang, M. Fanqi, Y . Zhang, B. Zhang, Q. Zhang, J. Wang, Y . Zhou, W. Liu, J. Xie, and S. Mao, “Lithium titanate battery system enables hybrid electric heavy-duty vehicles,” Journal of Energy Storage , vol. 74, p. 109313, 12 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    Advancing state of health estimation for electric vehicles: Transformer-based approach leveraging real-world data,

    K. Nakano, S. Vögler, and K. Tanaka, “Advancing state of health estimation for electric vehicles: Transformer-based approach leveraging real-world data,” Advances in Applied Energy , vol. 16, p. 100188, 09 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [5]

    Battery management,

    J. Unger, M. Quasthoff, S. Jakubek, J. Unger, M. Quasthoff, and S. Jakubek, “Battery management,” Energy Efficient Non-Road Hybrid Electric Vehicles: Advanced Modeling and Control , pp. 11–41, 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [6]

    Accelerating Sensor Fusion in Neuromorphic Computing: A Case Study on Loihi-2

    M. Isik, K. Tiwari, M. B. Eryilmaz, and I. Dikmen, “Accelerating sensor fusion in neuromorphic computing: A case study on loihi-2,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.16096, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  8. [7]

    A Survey of Spiking Neural Network Accelerator on FPGA

    M. Isik, “A survey of spiking neural network accelerator on fpga,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.03910, 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 24 references
  1. [8]

    A review of soh estimation methods in lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicle applications,

    C. Lin, A. Tang, and W. Wang, “A review of soh estimation methods in lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicle applications,” Energy Procedia, vol. 75, pp. 1920–1925, 2015

    1920

  2. [9]

    A review of battery state of health estimation methods: Hybrid electric vehicle challenges,

    N. Noura, L. Boulon, and S. Jemei, “A review of battery state of health estimation methods: Hybrid electric vehicle challenges,” World Electric Vehicle Journal, vol. 11, p. 66, 10 2020

    2020

  3. [10]

    A machine learning approach for evaluation of battery state of health,

    D. Aloisio, G. Campobello, S. G. Leonardi, F. Sergi, G. Brunaccini, M. Ferraro, V . Antonucci, A. Segreto, N. Donato et al. , “A machine learning approach for evaluation of battery state of health,” in 24th IMEKO TC4 international symposium 22nd international workshop on ADC a...

    2020

  4. [11]

    State of health estimation and prediction of electric vehicle power battery based on operational vehicle data,

    X. Li, P. Wang, J. Wang, F. Xiu, and Y . Xia, “State of health estimation and prediction of electric vehicle power battery based on operational vehicle data,” Journal of Energy Storage , vol. 72, p. 108247, 11 2023

    2023

  5. [12]

    Lithium- ion battery state of health estimation using support vector regression (svr),

    S. Patil, S. M. Havaldar, R. Bhavana, S. Mathad, and K. R. Patil, “Lithium- ion battery state of health estimation using support vector regression (svr),” in 2023 International Conference on Ambient Intelligence, Knowledge Informatics and Industrial Electronics (AIKIIE) . IEEE...

    2023

  6. [13]

    Adaptive large language model for predicting lithium-ion battery degradation in energy storage systems,

    W. Zheng, K. Li, and P. Fu, “Adaptive large language model for predicting lithium-ion battery degradation in energy storage systems,” Available at SSRN 4910174, n.d

  7. [14]

    Shield: Llm-driven schema induction for predictive analytics in ev battery supply chain disruptions,

    Z.-Q. Cheng, Y . Dong, A. Shi, W. Liu, Y . Hu, J. O’Connor, A. Haupt- mann, and K. Whitefoot, “Shield: Llm-driven schema induction for predictive analytics in ev battery supply chain disruptions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.05357, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Hybrid prompt-driven large language model for robust state-of-charge estimation of multi-type li-ion batteries,

    C. Bian, X. Han, Z. Duan, C. Deng, S. Yang, and J. Feng, “Hybrid prompt-driven large language model for robust state-of-charge estimation of multi-type li-ion batteries,” IEEE Transactions on Transportation Electrification, 2024

    2024

  9. [16]

    State of health estimation of lithium titanate oxide batteries through data-driven techniques and machine learning,

    N. Yildiran, I. C. Dikmen, and T. Karadag, “State of health estimation of lithium titanate oxide batteries through data-driven techniques and machine learning,” in 2024 8th International Artificial Intelligence and Data Processing Symposium (IDAP) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–8

    2024

  10. [17]

    Sundén, Hydrogen, Batteries and Fuel Cells

    B. Sundén, Hydrogen, Batteries and Fuel Cells . Academic Press, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.com/books?id= eCugDwAAQBAJ

    2019

  11. [19]

    Transformer-based deep learning models for state of charge and state of health estimation of li-ion batteries: A survey study,

    J. Guirguis and R. Ahmed, “Transformer-based deep learning models for state of charge and state of health estimation of li-ion batteries: A survey study,” Energies, vol. 17, p. 3502, 07 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Deep learning approach towards accurate state of charge estimation for lithium-ion batteries using self-supervised transformer model,

    M. A. Hannan, D. Neoh, M. S. Hossain Lipu, M. Mansor, P. J. Ker, Z. Dong, K. Sahari, S. Tiong, K. Muttaqi, T. M. I. Mahlia, and F. Blaabjerg, “Deep learning approach towards accurate state of charge estimation for lithium-ion batteries using self-supervised transformer model,”...

    2021

  13. [21]

    Review of battery state estimation methods for electric vehicles-part ii: Soh estimation,

    O. Demirci, S. Taskin, E. Schaltz, and B. A. Demirci, “Review of battery state estimation methods for electric vehicles-part ii: Soh estimation,” Journal of Energy Storage , vol. 96, p. 112703, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Data-driven methods for battery soh estimation: Survey and a critical analysis,

    T. Oji, Y . Zhou, S. Ci, F. Kang, X. Chen, and X. Liu, “Data-driven methods for battery soh estimation: Survey and a critical analysis,” Ieee Access, vol. 9, pp. 126 903–126 916, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    State of health and remaining useful life prediction of lithium-ion batteries based on a disturbance-free incremental capacity and differential voltage analysis method,

    F. Xia, K. Wang, and J. Chen, “State of health and remaining useful life prediction of lithium-ion batteries based on a disturbance-free incremental capacity and differential voltage analysis method,” Journal of Energy Storage, vol. 64, p. 107161, 08 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Lto battery capacity fading,

    I. C. DIKMEN, “Lto battery capacity fading,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.21227/4bqx-gt92

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.