Charging Phase Health Indicators for Battery State-of-Health Estimation: A Systematic Comparison of CC, CV, and Combined Approaches under Cross-Battery Validation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
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.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 3 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Jul 2026.
Builds on
3 of 30 references.
References · 3
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
- 2021Machine learning pipeline for battery state of health estimationcited by 28
- 2017Gaussian process regression for forecasting battery state of healthcited by 27
Built on by
Not cited yet.