Charging Phase Health Indicators for Battery State-of-Health Estimation: A Systematic Comparison of CC, CV, and Combined Approaches under Cross-Battery Validation (arxiv.org)
arXiv:2607.23482v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Accurate State-of-Health estimation is essential for safe battery operation and cost-effective maintenance. Although numerous health indicators have been derived from constant-current (CC) and constant-voltage (CV) charging phases, their effectiveness under realistic cross-battery validation remains insufficiently studied. This work addresses this gap through a systematic comparison of CC-only, CV-only, and combined indicator sets using rigorous Leave-One-Battery-Out (LOBO) validation on the NASA battery aging dataset. Four CV-phase indicators and CC phase duration are evaluated individually and in combination. Results show that the combined CC+CV approach achieves the best performance (R2 = 0.874), confirming that CC and CV phases capture complementary degradation information. Moreover, a 119% performance gap is observed between standard 5-fold cross-validation and LOBO validation, indicating that conventional evaluation overestimates practical accuracy. Based on these findings, practical guidelines are provided for indicator selection under data and computational constraints.
Abstract: Accurate State-of-Health estimation is essential for safe battery operation and cost-effective maintenance. Although numerous health indicators have been derived from constant-current (CC) and constant-voltage (CV) charging phases, their effectiveness under realistic cross-battery validation remains insufficiently studied. This work addresses this gap through a systematic comparison of CC-only, CV-only, and combined indicator sets using rigorous Leave-One-Battery-Out (LOBO) validation on the NASA battery aging dataset. Four CV-phase indicators and CC phase duration are evaluated individually and in combination. Results show that the combined CC+CV approach achieves the best performance (R2 = 0.874), confirming that CC and CV phases capture complementary degradation information. Moreover, a 119% performance gap is observed between standard 5-fold cross-validation and LOBO validation, indicating that conventional evaluation overestimates practical accuracy. Based on these findings, practical guidelines are provided for indicator selection under data and computational constraints.
Comments