batteries

Review
Evaluation of Advances in Battery Health Prediction for Electric
Vehicles from Traditional Linear Filters to Latest Machine
Learning Approaches
Adrienn Dineva 1,2

1 John von Neumann Faculty of Informatics, Óbuda University, 96/b Bécsi Street, H-1034 Budapest, Hungary;
dineva.adrienn@nik.uni-obuda.hu
2 Audi Hungaria Faculty of Automotive Engineering, Szechenyi Istvan University, Egyetem Sq. 1.,
H-9026 Györ, Hungary; dineva.adrienn@sze.hu

Abstract: In recent years, there has been growing interest in Li-ion battery State-of-Health (SOH)
estimation due to its critical role in ensuring the safe and reliable operation of Electric Vehicles
(EVs). Effective energy management and accurate SOH prediction are essential for the reliability
and sustainability of EVs. This paper presents an in-depth review of SOH estimation techniques,
starting with an overview of seminal methods that lay the theoretical groundwork for battery
modeling and SOH prediction. The review then evaluates recent advancements in Machine Learning
(ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques, emphasizing their contributions to improving SOH
estimation. Through a rigorous screening process, the paper systematically assesses the evolution of
these advanced methods, addressing specific research questions to evaluate their effectiveness and
practical implications. Key findings highlight the potential of hybrid models that integrate Equivalent
Circuit Models (ECMs) with Deep Learning approaches, offering enhanced accuracy and real-time
performance. Additionally, the paper discusses limitations of current methods, such as challenges in
translating laboratory-based models to real-world conditions and the computational complexity of
some prospective methods. In conclusion, this paper identifies promising future research directions
aimed at optimizing hybrid models and overcoming existing constraints to advance SOH estimation
and battery management in Electric Vehicles.
Citation: Dineva, A. Evaluation of
Advances in Battery Health Prediction
Keywords: machine learning (ML); battery state-of-health (SOH); state-of-charge (SOC); lithium-ion
for Electric Vehicles from Traditional
batteries; electric vehicles (EVs); battery management systems (BMSs); predictive modeling
Linear Filters to Latest Machine
Learning Approaches. Batteries 2024,
10, 356. https://doi.org/10.3390/
batteries10100356
1. Introduction
Academic Editors: Vaclav Knap,
Daniel Auger and Abbas Fotouhi
Lithium-ion batteries are critical for the operation of Electric Vehicles (EVs), with their
performance being significantly affected by various degradation processes. Accurate
Received: 29 August 2024 estimation of a battery’s State-of-Health (SOH) is essential to ensure the safety, reliability,
Revised: 26 September 2024 and cost-effectiveness of EVs, especially as the demand for these vehicles continues to
Accepted: 8 October 2024 grow [1].
Published: 11 October 2024
Battery Management Systems (BMSs) monitor key parameters such as current, voltage,
temperature, State-of-Charge (SOC), SOH, and State-of-Power (SOP) [2]. SOH, which
represents the ratio of a battery’s current maximum capacity to its rated capacity [3],
Copyright: © 2024 by the author.
serves as a critical indicator of battery degradation. The precision of SOH models and
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. predictive algorithms within BMSs directly impacts system performance, making accurate
This article is an open access article modeling particularly crucial. As the adoption of EVs and portable electronics increases,
distributed under the terms and there is a growing demand for more advanced BMS technology [4]. Lithium-ion batteries
conditions of the Creative Commons typically degrade to 80% of their original capacity before reaching the end of their useful
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// life, highlighting the importance of SOH monitoring to ensure reliable operation [5–10].
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ The SOC, which reflects the battery’s current energy state, is also a key parameter,
4.0/). because changes in the SOC provide insights into the aging and degradation of battery

Batteries 2024, 10, 356. https://doi.org/10.3390/batteries10100356 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/batteries

Batteries 2024, 10, 356 2 of 40

capacity. Accurate SOC prediction thus aids in SOH estimation, which in turn determines
the remaining lifespan of the battery [11,12].
Various methods for SOH estimation have been developed, with SOC-based ap-
proaches playing a significant role. By integrating real-time data such as current, voltage,
and temperature over multiple charge/discharge cycles, these approaches enable more ac-
curate SOH predictions. This real-time integration not only optimizes battery performance
but also prevents failures and extends battery life.
Recent advancements in Machine Learning (ML) methods have further enhanced SOH
estimation. Heinrich et al. [13] provide a comprehensive evaluation of ML techniques in
battery modeling, demonstrating how these models have replaced traditional physical
models by leveraging in-vehicle sensor data, significantly reducing the need for expensive
laboratory experiments. The study also emphasizes that the performance of data-driven
methods varies depending on the specific application and dataset used, making it essential
to compare different approaches to identify the most effective solution. In their analysis,
they compare conventional regression methods with neural networks, which had been
trained on diverse automotive driving profiles. Their findings show that neural networks,
particularly Feedforward and Convolutional Neural Networks, outperform conventional
methods in both complexity and accuracy. With an average error deviation of approximately
0.16% and a Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of 5.57 mV at the battery cell level, these
models provide the precision required for practical battery management.
Despite these advancements, several challenges remain. The varying performance
rates of ML-based approaches across different datasets and applications underscore the
need for more robust and generalized models. Additionally, traditional analytical and
model-based methods, while reliable, struggle with real-time adaptability, particularly
under diverse driving conditions and environmental factors. As a result, further research
into hybrid models that combine the strengths of both traditional and ML approaches could
address these limitations and provide more reliable SOH predictions. To better understand
these challenges, it is essential to explore the primary modeling approaches that follow.
Analytical methods, such as current integration and open-circuit voltage (OCV) tech-
niques, offer clear SOH estimates but face limitations due to accumulated noise and the
requirement for long rest periods to ensure accuracy [14].
Model-based approaches can be classified further into white-box, gray-box, and black-
box models, each offering various trade-offs between accuracy, computational complexity,
and real-time applicability.
White-box models are based on detailed electrochemical principles, simulating bat-
tery behavior through fundamental parameters like charge transfer rates and diffusion
processes. While these models provide high precision, their computational demands and
simplified assumptions about real-world dynamics can reduce accuracy under dynamic
conditions [15]. Factors such as charge rates, temperature effects [16], and aging pro-
cesses [17] significantly impact the accuracy of these models, making them less suitable for
real-time applications [18].
The widely employed and popular gray-box models, including Equivalent Circuit
Models (ECMs), combine physical insights with empirical adjustments. ECMs approximate
battery behavior using circuit analogies and can estimate the State-of-Charge with high
accuracy, typically within a 3% margin of error according to the reference [19]. These
models are particularly useful for real-time SOH estimation and Remaining Useful Life
(RUL) predictions, though challenges remain in terms of data quality and computational
demands [20]. Simple Equivalent Circuit Models of Li-ion batteries, consisting of a series
resistance and up to two RC elements, are already suitable for performing reliable sim-
ulations. ECMs with up to five RC branches, or an additional Constant Phase Element
(CPE) that models the double-layer effect, are suitable for modeling highly dynamic pro-
cesses such as EV operation [21]. By using Resistance Constant Phase Element (RCPE),
the impedance spectrum can be modeled with the highest accuracy, making these types of
models suitable for diagnostic purposes as well according to [21]. However, this results in
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 3 of 40

an increase in computational demand, which can pose challenges in real-time applications.

This, among other factors, drives the need for more advanced SOH development.
Black-box models, or data-driven approaches, aim to approximate an unknown system
by building a model based solely on input and output data, without requiring detailed
knowledge of the internal workings of the system. In the case of systems based on lithium-
ion technology, ML techniques are employed to predict battery states based on large
measurement datasets, without relying on detailed physical modeling. Machine Learning
excels at recognizing patterns within complex datasets, for instance, with models such as
multi-channel Neural Networks (NNs) showing high accuracy in capacity estimation [22].
However, since many internal variables are not directly measurable in real-world vehicle
applications, the role of such data-driven, approximative models is becoming increasingly
important. These models, though powerful, are highly dependent on the quality and
variety of training data, which reflect real-world conditions, which may be hard to be
acquired outside of a laboratory environment [23]. Moreover, data sparsity and the lack of
interpretability make ML models harder to understand and maintain [24].
Battery degradation is influenced by various operational conditions, such as fluctu-
ating currents and extreme temperatures [25,26]. Although traditional methods, such as
the Wiener process, have often been used for degradation modeling [27–30], data-driven
approaches have emerged as effective alternatives, enabling adaptive learning from large
datasets to capture intricate degradation patterns. Additionally, the specific chemistry of
lithium-ion batteries significantly impacts State-of-Health predictions, as highlighted in the
paper [31], particularly for Nickel Manganese Cobalt (NMC) and its degradation modes.
The variety in battery chemistry presents a significant challenge for accurate modeling
and predictions.
In the past decade, there has been notable evolution in model-based methods, in-
cluding Kalman Filters (KFs) [32,33] (widely known as linear quadratic estimation filters),
Extended Kalman Filters (EKFs), which apply first-order Taylor expansions to linearize
nonlinear systems and Unscented Kalman Filters (UKFs) [34,35]. These methods provide
high accuracy in battery state estimation but require precise dynamic models and can be
complex to implement [16,17]. Hybrid models, which integrate both model-based and
data-driven approaches, have been developed to address the limitations of real-world
data while enhancing computational efficiency through detailed simulations used to train
machine learning models.
Significant advancements have occurred in Machine Learning techniques, especially
over the last five years, including probabilistic methods, meta-learning, adversarial learn-
ing, semi-supervised learning, etc., which push the boundaries of traditional approaches.
For instance, probabilistic models that manage uncertainty and incorporate prior knowl-
edge are crucial for optimizing the battery life cycle, as highlighted in [36]. Moreover, Deep
Learning—a subset of ML—excels at processing both structured and unstructured data, en-
abling the extraction of complex features essential for accurate battery state estimation [37].
Notably, physics-informed Neural Networks (PINNs) have been proposed to combine
empirical degradation models with Neural Networks for improved SOH estimation [38].
Furthermore, the enhanced methodologies by Hofmann et al. [39] have demonstrated
adaptability across various battery types and conditions.
As the automotive industry evolves, these advancements play a crucial role in opti-
mizing battery performance, preventing failures and supporting electric mobility [10,40].
This review offers an in-depth exploration of recent advancements in battery health
estimation, focusing on the growing role of Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelli-
gence (AI). By examining the evolution from classical methodologies to more sophisticated
modern approaches, the ongoing need for accurate and robust State-of-Health estima-
tion is emphasized, particularly to meet the increasing requirements of advanced Battery
Management Systems.
Section 2 details the methodology employed for screening and selecting the reviewed
papers, ensuring a thorough and structured approach to the topic.
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 4 of 40

Section 3 presents an in-depth analysis of State-of-Charge estimation techniques,

exploring the impact of battery degradation mechanisms and the various modeling ap-
proaches applied to Electric Vehicle batteries. Representative methods such as Kalman
Filters and their adaptations are discussed, followed by more recent developments that
integrate aging models.
Section 4 shifts focus to SOH estimation techniques, contrasting traditional methods
with newer, more advanced models that address the limitations of classical approaches.
Special emphasis is placed on methods applicable to EVs, where enhanced accuracy and
predictive power are crucial.
In Section 5, the review highlights the growing role of Deep Learning in SOH es-
timation, showcasing techniques such as Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks
and hybrid models. These advanced methods, along with Convolutional Neural Net-
works (CNNs), significantly improve the precision of health assessments by considering
real-world factors such as temperature and current variations.
Section 6 provides a brief outlook on secondary applications, particularly the evolving
research into battery second-life applications. It explores the challenges associated with bat-
tery heterogeneity and unknown first-life conditions, and it discusses emerging techniques
that seek to address these complexities.
Finally, Section 7 concludes the review by offering perspectives on future research
directions, emphasizing the critical need for continued innovation in battery health man-
agement systems to support the rapidly expanding EV market and other energy stor-
age applications.

2. Materials and Methods

This literature review addresses several key questions regarding the application of
machine learning techniques for SOC (and related SOC) estimation in Li-ion batteries used
in Electric Vehicles (EVs). The following Research Questions have been defined to guide
this review:
1. What are the primary Machine Learning (ML) techniques currently used for State-of-
Health (SOH) estimation in Li-ion batteries for Electric Vehicles?
• It will guide the exploration of the specific algorithms and models that re-
searchers have developed and utilized.
2. How do different data sources (laboratory, in-vehicle, field data) impact the accuracy
and robustness of machine learning models for SOH estimation?
• This question addresses the variability and reliability of the data used to train ML
models. It aims to explore how the source of data influences model performance
and what type of data is most conducive to accurate SOH prediction.
3. What are the key challenges in applying machine learning techniques for SOH esti-
mation in Li-ion batteries, and how do these challenges vary across different environ-
mental conditions and application scenarios?
• This question seeks to identify the limitations and difficulties encountered when
applying ML models in real-world settings, such as the effects of temperature
fluctuations, aging, and varying usage patterns on the accuracy of SOH estimation.
4. What are the differences between analytical, traditional approaches in SOH estimation,
how do they evolve, and how do Machine Learning methods integrate with these
traditional approaches?
• This question will help compare traditional SOH estimation techniques with
ML-based methods, identifying strengths, weaknesses, and potential synergies
between the two, as well as also demonstrate the progess of the methods.
5. What are the future research directions for improving the accuracy, adaptability,
and computational efficiency of ML-based SOH estimation models for Li-ion batteries
in EVs?
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 5 of 40

• This question is forward-looking, aiming to identify research gaps, technological

needs, and innovative approaches that could enhance ML techniques’ effective-
ness for SOH estimation.
The methodology design for this literature review is structured to systematically
analyze and synthesize existing studies on Machine Learning (ML) techniques for State-
of-Health (SOH) estimation in Li-ion batteries specifically used in Electric Vehicles (EVs).
This review adopts a systematic approach, emphasizing transparency and reproducibility.
A comprehensive search of the relevant literature was conducted using the Scopus database,
which is a reputable and extensive source of peer-reviewed research papers, patents,
and other academic documents. The search aimed to capture a broad range of studies from
various domains at the first step. The search strategy was guided by the key terms identified
from the research questions. The following Boolean search string was used: TITLE-ABS-KEY
(electric AND vehicle) AND KEY (battery AND state AND of AND health) AND TITLE-ABS-
KEY (lithium AND ion) AND PUBYEAR > 2003 AND PUBYEAR < 2025. This search string
was designed to include papers and patents published after 2003, up until 2024, to ensure
that the review covers both foundational and the most recent advancements in the field.
The keywords used in the search strategy for this literature review were carefully chosen to
maximize the relevance and comprehensiveness of the retrieved documents. They reflect
the key components of the research focus, ensuring that the literature review captures
the most pertinent studies. The search with the above-mentioned keywords resulted in
882 documents and 16,286 patents. Nearly half of these have been published in the past five
years (2020–2024), indicating strong industrial need and progress, with 8754 patents found
during this period. Figure 1 shows the distribution of the number of documents published
by year. In Figure 2 the distribution of the resulting papers according to the leading journals
can be observed. Figure 3 illustrates the number of papers published by researchers from
different countries, highlighting the geographic diversity and concentration of research
efforts in this field. In Figure 4, the distribution of patents published by leading patent
offices are displayed. Recent patents indicate that industry development priorities are
increasingly centered on advancing battery management systems, optimizing modular
battery architectures, enhancing vehicle control systems, and developing advanced low-
resistance materials, highlighting a focus on innovation in energy management and Electric
Vehicle infrastructure (see, e.g., [41–50]).
The 882 documents retrieved in this study are distributed across various subject
areas, with the share of subject area on Engineering (730), followed by Energy (504),
Computer Science (209), and Mathematics (189). Other disciplines such as Chemistry
(120), Materials Science (75), and Environmental Science (71) also contributed significantly,
highlighting the interdisciplinary nature of battery research and its relevance across a
wide range of scientific fields, according to Scopus Analytics. After narrowing down the
search to the field of computer science, where most AI-driven and Machine Learning-
based solutions appear, 209 documents were identified. From these documents, 183 range
between 2019 and 2024, which indicates the relevance of the collected material. These
documents are categorized by document type, including 132 conference papers, 72 articles,
four reviews, and one book chapter. The 72 articles published between 2009 and 2024 form
the main basis of this review, with the aim of revealing how artificial intelligence is being
leveraged to advance battery management systems. Narrowing the focus to computer
science captures the most innovative and technical advancements in battery management
systems, particularly those leveraging machine learning. This approach allows for a deeper
exploration of the most cutting-edge solutions and methodologies, offering insights into
how computational techniques are transforming battery health monitoring. In addition to
the primary 72 articles, other selected papers and book chapters have been included based
on a manual review from the field of engineering within the retrieved database.
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 6 of 40

Figure 1. The distribution of research documents on Machine Learning techniques for State-of-Health
estimation in Li-ion batteries for Electric Vehicles from 2004 to 2024, retrieved from the Scopus
database (as of 5 June 2024), is illustrated in the chart. It shows the number of documents published
each year, highlighting trends and research activity over time. Source: Scopus Analytics.

Figure 2. The distribution of papers on Machine Learning techniques for SOH estimation according to
journal is illustrated in the chart. It highlights the leading journals publishing on this topic, providing
insights into the primary sources for this review. Source: Scopus Analytics.

Figure 3. The distribution of research papers on Machine Learning techniques for State-of-Health
(SOH) estimation in Li-ion batteries for electric vehicles by country. Source: Scopus Analytics.
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 7 of 40

Figure 4. The distribution of patents on Li-ion battery State-of-Health for Electric Vehicles across
various patent offices from 2004 to 2024 is illustrated. The pie chart shows the total number of patents
(16,286) found in the Scopus database categorized according to patent office: United States Patent
and Trademark Office (11,331), Japan Patent Office (2235), World Intellectual Property Organization
(1535), European Patent Office (1073), and United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (112).

The organization of the reviewed papers follows a structured approach designed to

highlight the evolution of SOH estimation techniques and their advancements through
Machine Learning and AI. It categorizes the development according to key modeling di-
rections, also addressing the modeling of State-of-Charge prediction. This review begins
by establishing a foundational understanding through the exploration of traditional SOH
estimation methods and seminal works, providing readers with the historical context and
highlighting the limitations of early approaches. This is followed by a discussion of re-
cent methods that have replaced classical SOH estimation techniques with more accurate
aging models tailored specifically for Electric Vehicles (EVs), showcasing how advance-
ments have improved the applicability of these models. The following then transitions
to more advanced deep learning approaches. This includes detailed discussions on the
implementation of the most popular deep learning techniques, feature extraction, etc.,
as well as the integration of Machine Learning with traditional modeling approaches in
hybrid techniques. Notable advancements such as AI-driven techniques, Long Short-Term
Memory networks (LSTMs), and Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) are examined,
focusing on their capabilities for real-time predictions and adaptability to varying opera-
tional conditions (see, e.g., [51–56]). Lastly, the review briefly explores the latest research
on secondary applications, particularly in scenarios where early usage data have been
unavailable. This section highlights how batteries, once unsuitable for use in EVs, can
be effectively repurposed for use in renewable energy systems and other applications,
demonstrating the versatility and extended utility of battery technologies.
The primary aim of this review is to synthesize the existing literature on Machine
Learning techniques for SOH estimation in Li-ion batteries used in electric vehicles without
collecting or analyzing primary data, as recommended by [57]. To ensure comprehensive
coverage of the field, inclusion screening was conducted based on predefined criteria,
following the methodology outlined by [58] and the guidelines from [57]. This approach
ensured transparency and rigor in the selection process.
The structured approach to systematic reviews proposed by [59] was adopted to screen
the 209 documents for inclusion in this study. To assess the quality of the sources, a 5-point
quality scoring system was implemented. This scoring system, based on domain-specific
evaluations, was employed to address potential biases and enhance the validity of the
findings. Following [59], this approach involved formulating specific assessment questions
to guide the screening process, evaluating the relevance and robustness of the studies
and synthesizing findings in a comprehensive manner.
To explore various aspects of SOH (and related SOC) estimation, the review is guided
by five key assessment questions, as detailed in Table 1. These questions aim to identify
the primary machine learning techniques employed, evaluate the impact of different data
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 8 of 40

sources on model performance, and investigate the challenges encountered in real-world

applications, among other critical aspects. This targeted approach allows for a thorough
examination of the field and the identification of the most pertinent sources.
The following Table 1 presents the assessment questions used in this review. Each
question is designed to evaluate specific aspects of the included studies, focusing on their
relevance and robustness.

Table 1. Assessment questions for evaluating ML techniques for SOH estimation, designed based on
the recommendations of Kitchenham et al. [59].

Assessment Question Description Evaluation Metric

1: Narrow; 2: Some;
Coverage of ML techniques for SOH
1 3: Broad; 4: Comprehensive;
estimation in Li-ion batteries
5: Thorough
1: Minimal; 2: Some;
Analysis of data sources’ impact on
2 3: General; 4: Thorough;
ML model performance
5: Comprehensive
1: Few; 2: Minimal; 3: Key
Identification and discussion of
3 challenges; 4: Detailed;
challenges in different conditions
5: Extensive
1: Little; 2: Basic;
Comparison of ML methods with
4 3: General; 4: Detailed;
traditional approaches
5: Comprehensive
1: None; 2: Some;
Proposal of future research
5 3: General; 4: Well-defined;
directions for improving ML models
5: Innovative

3. State-of-Charge Estimation Techniques

3.1. Battery Degradation Mechanisms and Impact on Performance
Understanding the underlying physics of battery degradation and leveraging ad-
vanced estimation techniques are key to optimizing battery performance and extending
its lifespan. Lithium-ion batteries degrade primarily through two mechanisms: the loss of
lithium inventory (LLI) and the loss of active material (LAM). Both mechanisms involve
complex electrochemical and mechanical processes that alter the battery’s performance
over time [60].
The formation of the solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) layer on the anode is a key factor
in the loss of lithium inventory. This SEI layer forms as a result of side reactions between
lithium ions and the electrolyte [61]:

Li+ + e− + EC → SEI + Li2 CO3

where Li2 CO3 represents a common decomposed product of the electrolyte, as a specific
example shows in [60].
The loss of active material (LAM) occurs due to mechanical stresses within the battery,
particularly in the electrodes during cycling. Repeated expansion and contraction of
the electrode materials during lithiation and delithiation can cause micro-cracks and the
detachment of electrode particles, leading to a reduction in the active surface area available
for electrochemical reactions [61], which can be represented as follows:

leads to results in Lower Capacity
LAM −−−−→ Reduced Active Surface Area −−−−−→
Higher Internal Resistance

More details about the aging mechanisms (e.g., thermal, electrochemical, etc.) of
lithium cells can be found in [62], and modeling details can be found in [60]. These
degradation mechanisms are accelerated by factors such as high states of charge, elevated
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 9 of 40

temperatures, and aggressive cycling conditions. The cumulative effect is a reduction

in the battery’s capacity, an increase in internal resistance, and ultimately, a decline in
performance [61].

3.2. State-of-Charge Estimation and Modeling Techniques for Electric Vehicle Batteries
In everyday Electric Vehicle usage, batteries are typically not recharged after they are
fully depleted; instead, they are usually recharged when the State-of-Charge falls between
20% and 40%. This practice helps to maintain battery health and performance. However,
due to the nonlinear nature of battery capacity and degradation, SOC readings may be-
come inaccurate, affecting the estimation of the battery’s full capacity. The performance
and maintenance of lithium-ion batteries are also climate-dependent [63]. According to
recent research, the efficiency and longevity of the cells can vary significantly with tem-
perature, and the freshness of the electrolyte—determined by the battery’s production
and electrolyte filling dates—can influence performance. In particular, the study indicates
that lithium-ion batteries with newer electrolytes might exhibit different characteristics
across various climates. It also reviews thermal management strategies designed to address
temperature-related performance issues and enhance battery durability in both cold and
hot conditions [64].
Traditional methods for estimating the SOC of batteries, such as the Equivalent Circuit
Model (ECM), often necessitate frequent recalibration due to the evolving characteristics of
the battery over time. The Equivalent Electric Circuit (EEC) model is a prevalent approach
for simulating the behavior of high-power lithium-ion battery cells, especially for estimating
the SOC. This model offers a detailed representation of the battery’s electrical response,
as demonstrated by the second-order model detailed in [65].
The following equations describe how SOC and terminal voltage are computed both
continuously and discretely. The system’s behavior is governed by the following state-
space equations:    1 
  
V̇1 − R11C1 0 0 V1 C
1    11 
V̇2  =  0 − R2 C2 0  2V +  C2  I (1)
Ṡ S 1
0 0 0 −Q

where V̇1 and V̇2 are the rates of change of the voltages across two resistors—V1 and V2 —
and Ṡ is the rate of change of the SOC—R1 and R2 —and C1 and C2 are the resistances and
capacitances of the circuit elements, respectively. Q represents the total charge capacity of
the battery, and I is the input current.
The terminal voltage V is computed as follows:

V = VOC (S) − V1 − V2 − IR0 (2)

where VOC (S) denotes the open-circuit voltage as a function of SOC, and R0 is the internal
resistance. V1 and V2 represent the voltage drops across the resistive components of the
model, and IR0 accounts for the voltage drop due to the internal resistance.
The open-circuit voltage VOC as a function of SOC k is given by
α2
VOC = α0 + α1 k + + α3 ln k + α4 ln (1 − k) (3)
k
Here, the αi values are constant coefficients derived from polynomial fitting of the open-
circuit voltage model to SOC–OCV data. The parameter k represents the SOC of the battery,
and the equation describes the relationship between SOC and the open-circuit voltage.
In the discrete time domain, the SOC is calculated iteratively based on a sampling
interval ∆t. The SOC update equation is given by

η Il ∆t
SOCn = SOCn−1 − (4)
Ci
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 10 of 40

where SOCn represents the battery’s State-of-Charge at the nth sampling instant, SOCn−1
is the State-of-Charge at the previous sampling instant, η is the coulombic efficiency
indicating the battery’s charge and discharge efficiency, Il is the load current, ∆t is the
sampling interval, and Ci is the battery’s nominal capacity.
At the nth sampling instant, the voltages are updated using the following equations:
   
− R ∆tC − R ∆tC

V1,n = V1,n−1 e 1 1 + Il,n−1 R1 1 − e 1 1 ,
   
− ∆t − ∆t

(5)
V2,n = V2,n−1 e R2 C2 + Il,n−1 R2 1 − e R2 C2 ,

Vn = VOC − V1,n − V2,n − Il,n R0 .

Here, V1,n and V2,n are the voltages measured by two voltage responses across the RC
networks at the nth sampling instant, while V1,n−1 and V2,n−1 are the voltages measured
at the previous sampling instant. The terms R1 and R2 represent the resistances of the
dividers, and C1 and C2 denote their capacitances. VOC is the open-circuit voltage of the
battery, R0 is the internal resistance of the battery, and Il,n is the load current at the nth
sampling instant.
The sampling interval ∆t is the time elapsed between two consecutive sampling points.
For discrete-time modeling, the state-space representation is given by

xn+1 = Φxn + Γun + ζ n (6)

yn+1 = Cxn+1 + Dun + ξ n (7)

where xn = [V1,n V2,n k n ] T is the state vector, yn = Vt,n is the observation, and un = Il,n is
the input. The matrices are defined as follows:
  
− R ∆tC
 
−
  ∆t 
R 1 e

−R C 1 1
 1
e 0  0
1 1 
  
Φ= , Γ =  − R ∆tC
 
∆t
−  R2 1 − e
 (8)
 0 e R2 C2 0 
2 2 

0 0 1 η∆t
Ci
h i
dVOC (k )
C = −1 −1 dk
, D = − R0 (9)

where ζ n and ξ n represent external disturbances and measurement noise, respectively. The
parameter vector to be estimated is θ = [ R1 , R2 , C1 , C2 , R0 ] T . Standard laboratory tests,
such as hybrid pulse power characterization (HPPC) tests at various temperatures, are
commonly employed for parameter identification of the cell model. However, due to
model inaccuracies and measurement noise, the cell model may slightly differ from the
actual cell behavior, leading to small errors in SOC estimation. To enhance SOC estimation
accuracy, various techniques such as Kalman Filters, extended Kalman Filters, Unscented
Kalman Filters, PI-based observers, sliding mode observers, and others have been utilized
to compensate for these effects and have achieved satisfactory results according to the
literature (see, e.g., [66]). Further approaches, such as integral correction methods and
advancements to address initial model uncertainties and measurement noise, have also
been developed.
On the other hand, tradtional techniques such as Electrochemical Impedance Spec-
troscopy (EIS) have been employed for evaluating battery characteristics, including the
State-of-Charge and State-of-Health. However, EIS is often time-consuming and may
be impractical for large-scale applications [67], such as Electric Vehicle fleets. Moreover,
EIS methods can struggle to capture the dynamic and varied operating conditions of EV
batteries, highlighting the need for more adaptive and efficient approaches.
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 11 of 40

3.3. Improved Techniques

A widely adopted approach for SOC estimation involves the use of the Kalman Filter
(KF) and its various adaptations [68,69]. The KF provides optimal SOC estimates by
minimizing mean squared errors, effectively addressing issues related to cumulative errors
and uncertain initial SOC values. However, the KF is inherently suited to linear time-
varying systems [70–72]. Since the dynamics of battery cells are nonlinear, it is necessary
to approximate the system using a linear time-varying model through the process of
linearization. To accommodate this nonlinearity, the Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) is
often employed, extending the KF framework to handle nonlinear models [34]. Over the
years, several significant methods have been developed to enhance SOC estimation under
these conditions, as demonstrated in studies such as [73–76]. Despite its advantages,
the process of linearization can sometimes compromise accuracy, potentially leading to
estimator divergence.
To address these limitations, newer techniques such as the Unscented Kalman Filter
(UKF) [34,35] and the Cubature Kalman Filter (CKF) have been introduced as more robust
alternatives [77,78]. These methods, instead of relying on linearization, employ sigma
points to estimate the statistics of a Gaussian random variable undergoing nonlinear
transformations. Specifically, the CKF improves upon these approximations by utilizing a
spherical–radial cubature rule to compute multivariate moment integrals, providing higher
accuracy in nonlinear Bayesian filtering [79].
However, these filters typically assume that process and measurement noise covari-
ances are known and constant. In real-world applications, noise characteristics often vary
over time or deviate from Gaussian distributions. For example, external disturbances can
cause non-Gaussian noise with heavy-tailed or skewed distributions [80–82]. Furthermore,
outliers or abrupt changes can degrade the filter’s performance, leading to estimation errors
or divergence. To address these challenges, robust and adaptive filtering strategies have
been developed for non-Gaussian environments and uncertain noise statistics (see e.g., [83]).
Applications of discrete-time nonlinear systems with non-Gaussian noise models are preva-
lent in various fields, including sensor networks for data fusion, maritime navigation and
tracking, and industrial process control and monitoring [83]. The non-Gaussian noise in a
nonlinear system can be mathematically described by combining discrete-time nonlinear
state transition and measurement equations, where noise components are modeled using
Gaussian Mixture Models (GMMs) [83]. GMMs provide a flexible framework to represent
complex noise characteristics that deviate from Gaussian distributions, enabling more
accurate modeling of real-world systems where such noise is common. This approach
improves the filter’s ability to handle multimodal distributions, outliers, or skewed noise,
thus enhancing estimation accuracy.
Mathematically, the process noise wk and measurement noise vk can be modeled using
GMMs [84] as follows:
G1
p ( wk ) = ∑ α j · N ( wk | µ j , Σ j ) (10)
j =1

G2
p(vk ) = ∑ β m · N (vk | νm , Θm ), (11)
m =1

in which p( x ) represents the probability density of the noise component, G1 and G2 are the
number of Gaussian components for process noise and measurement noise, respectively, α j
and β m denote the weights of the Gaussian components, with

G1 G2
∑ αj = 1 and ∑ β m = 1, (12)
j =1 m =1

while N (wk | µ j , Σ j ) and N (vk | νm , Θm ) denote Gaussian distributions with mean µ j , νm

and covariance matrices Σ j , Θm , respectively.
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 12 of 40

Thus, the noise component vk is modeled as

vk ∼ p(vk ) (13)

where p(vk ) approximates any complex, non-Gaussian noise distribution using a mixture
of Gaussians.
The modeling of non-Gaussian noise presents significant challenges for traditional fil-
ters, which are primarily designed for Gaussian noise. Consequently, newer methodologies,
such as the Robust Kalman Filter, have emerged to consider the non-Gaussian nature of the
noise during filtering processes. By incorporating these advanced techniques, it becomes
possible to enhance state estimation accuracy and reliability in systems characterized by
complex noise environments, particularly in applications where the dynamics of battery
systems involve intricate electrochemical processes, as highlighted in [85]. A summary of
the taxonomy of key Kalman Filter methods is presented in Table 2.
In addition to robust filtering techniques, decentralized and distributed filters, such
as the the Decentralized Kalman Filter (DKF) [86] and Distributed Kalman Filter with
Covariance Intersection (DKF-CI) [87], are designed to optimize state estimation in large-
scale, interconnected systems, particularly when sensor networks are involved and noise
characteristics are not Gaussian [88–90]. These methods aim to improve accuracy by
addressing cumulative errors and noise variations across different sensors or subsystems.
Additionally, Robust and Nonlinear Filters—such as the Robust Kalman Filter [91]—offer
superior performance in scenarios where traditional linearization techniques like the EKF
fall short, especially in handling the nonlinearities of battery systems where electrochemical
processes are complex, as was pointed out in [85].
Building upon these advancements, Adaptive techniques—such as those explored
in recent studies on Adaptive EKF [92] and adaptive UKF algorithms [93]—dynamically
adjust filter parameters to account for variations in the statistical properties of process and
measurement noise. These methods have shown significant promise in improving SOC
estimation accuracy in Battery Management Systems (BMS) and battery SOH prediction
applications, even under uncertain or varying conditions.
Fu et al. [87] introduced a tightly coupled Distributed Kalman Filter (DKF) that
integrates a Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM) [94] to address non-Gaussian noise and uses
covariance intersection to reduce cumulative errors from Local Kalman Filters (LKFs).
To further enhance robustness, an index Huber function was developed to mitigate the
effects of large covariance values from LKFs. Simulations and real-world experiments
confirmed the method’s effectiveness, outperforming other DKF algorithms in terms of
RMSE and cumulative error. A multi-sensor state estimation experiment on a hexapod
robot further validated this approach. More detailed information on the various versions
and taxonomy of KFs can be found in a comprehensive study by [95].

Table 2. Taxonomy of Key Kalman Filter Methods (1960–2022).

Method Name (Year) Problem Solved Strengths Limitations

Kalman Filters
Minimizes estimation errors.
Estimates the state of linear Efficient with low Limited to linear systems.
Kalman Filter (KF) (1960) [32] dynamic systems from noisy computational demands. Assumes known model
observations. Navigation and parameters and noise.
control systems.
Applicable to a wider array of
Addresses nonlinear systems Requires local linearization,
nonlinear systems. Widely
Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) by linearizing state-space introducing potential errors.
used in robotics. Maneuvering
equations. Computationally demanding.
scenarios.
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 13 of 40

Table 2. Cont.

Method Name (Year) Problem Solved Strengths Limitations

Decentralized and Distributed Filters
Reduces computation time
Optimally estimates states in with a hierarchical structure. Limited to linear systems.
Decentralized Kalman Filter
large-scale interconnected Stable in high-order systems. May face
(DKF) (1978) [86]
dynamical systems. Suitable for large-scale communication challenges.
industrial applications.
Reduces the impact of
Distributed Kalman Filter Enhances state estimation in non-Gaussian noise. Enhances Increased complexity in
with Covariance Intersection multi-sensor systems under accuracy. Effective in implementation. Dependent
(DKF-CI) (2022) [87] non-Gaussian noise. multi-sensor networks for on network reliability.
surveillance and monitoring.
Robust and Nonlinear Filters
Accommodates uncertainties. Complexity in
Designed for environments
Robust Kalman Filter (RKF) Provides reliable estimates. high-dimensional systems.
with uncertainties in model
(1994) [91] Useful in aerospace and Limited use in
parameters.
autonomous vehicles. continuous-time systems.
Eliminates the need for
Higher computational burden.
Unscented Kalman Filter An accurate alternative to explicit linearization. Better
Can diverge under severe
(UKF) (1997) [34] EKF for nonlinear systems. accuracy than EKF. Useful in
system noise.
tracking and navigation.
Adaptive and Multiple Model Filters
Adapts to changing system
Complexity increases with
dynamics. Reduces
Interacting Multiple Model Efficiently tracks systems with more models. Needs careful
computational load. Useful in
(IMM) (1988) [96] multiple switching modes. handling of
aerospace and defense
nonlinear systems.
applications.
Parallel bank of KF. Deals
Manages systems exhibiting with model uncertainty. High computational load.
Multiple Model Adaptive
multiple models or switching Applicable in target tracking Sensitive to the density
Estimation (MMAE) 2000 [97]
behaviors. and dynamic system of models.
monitoring.
Advanced Tracking Methods
Combines strengths of IMM
Improves tracking for and CKF. Robust in angle-only Computational demands
IMM with CKF (IMM-CKF)
maneuvering targets using measurement scenarios. increase with system size.
(2010) [98]
nonlinear models. Suitable for military and Requires well-defined models.
surveillance applications.
Integrates adaptive fading
More complex
IMM with Adaptive Robust UKF and robust UKF to Provides flexibility and
implementation. Requires
UKF (IMM-ARUKF) manage model uncertainties improved accuracy through
careful tuning of
(2017) [99] using a Markov chain for state dual filtering.
transition probabilities.
estimation.
Enhances MMAE by Adapts window size for Complexity in determining
Window-based Multiple
incorporating window size as optimal filtering. Incorporates optimal window size.
Model Adaptive Estimation
an additional tuning simplicity. Applicable in Performance sensitive to
(WMMAE) (2017) [100]
parameter. real-time data analysis. window selection.

As demonstrated above, the charging and discharging processes of batteries are

inherently complex, with electrochemical reactions strongly influenced by external envi-
ronmental factors. Developing precise and reliable real-time SOC and SOH estimation
algorithms remains a significant challenge. Accurate SOC estimation is critical, as it directly
impacts SOH prediction accuracy. Therefore, SOC-based SOH estimation remains a major
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 14 of 40

research focus, with ongoing efforts aimed at improving both the accuracy and robustness
of these methods [101,102].
Table 3 provides a brief comparaison of the advantages and disadvantages of some of
the traditional and seminal approaches to SOC estimation, highlighting how more recent
techniques offer promising solutions for real-time Battery Management Systems.

Table 3. Advantages and Disadvantages of Common SOC Estimation Approaches.

Procedure Advantage Disadvantage

Electrochemical-based, e.g., [17] Accuracy In situ implementation is too complex
Depends on initial charge level; not
Coulomb count, e.g., [3,103] Simple implementation
applicable under dynamic loads
Open-circuit voltage-based, e.g., [3,104] No need for an algorithm Requires long rest periods
High computational demand (online
Extended Kalman Filter, e.g., [105] Accurate, robust against noise
application cumbersome); complex
Accurate, handles system and model
Sliding Mode Observer, e.g., [106] Nonlinear; complex
inaccuracies well

3.4. Integration with Aging Models

This subsection explores recent advancements in both SOC estimation and battery
aging models, as these areas are closely interconnected with the overall health assessment
of batteries.
Recent research has introduced innovative methods that not only improve the accuracy
of SOC estimation but also has addressed the impact of battery aging and degradation.
This subsection presents in chronological order some of the most promising techniques
introduced between 2022 and 2024, focusing on their novel approaches and improvements
over traditional methods. By examining these recent advancements, it is aimed to illustrate
how the field is evolving to present methods that show significant promise for enhancing
battery management systems.
Belonging to the gray-box modeling category, the inherently ECM-based method
known as the Adaptive Integral Correction-Based State-of-Charge Estimation (AIC-SE)
was introduced in 2022 to enhance the accuracy of SOC estimation [107] in 2022. This
technique builds upon traditional estimation frameworks by integrating real-time correc-
tion mechanisms, thereby improving robustness and reliability under dynamic operat-
ing conditions [107]. This method builds on a third-order RC equivalent circuit model
and incorporates two additional correction loops—resistance correction and cell capacity
correction—to handle model inaccuracies caused by aging. The AIC-SE method demon-
strated notable improvements in SOC estimation accuracy, achieving a maximum error of
±0.8% and a Root Mean Square (RMS) error of less than 0.3%, compared to the Unscented
Kalman Filter (UKF), which showed an RMS error of 11%.
In terms of computational efficiency, the AIC-SE method is significantly more ef-
ficient than the UKF. The AIC-SE method primarily involves integral calculations for
the correction
R factors: the integral correction factor Zc is computed using the formula
Zc = K
R Z ( VtMeasured − Vt ) dt, the resistance correction factor MR is calculated as MR =
K R ( TSMeasured
R − TS ) dt, and the cell capacity correction factor MQ is determined by
MQ = KQ ( Zc − Z MRef ) dt. Each of these integrals involves summation over n time steps,
resulting in approximately 3n operations. Additionally, basic arithmetic operations for
updating the SOC and model parameters add about 2n operations. Thus, the total number
of operations for the AIC-SE method is roughly 5n.
Conversely, the UKF involves more complex computations. The sigma point gen-
eration step requires matrix square roots and multiplications, which involves about n2
operations. This significant difference in computational burden highlights the AIC-SE
method’s practicality for real-time applications. Moreover, the AIC-SE method achieved
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 15 of 40

superior accuracy in SOC estimation, making it an effective solution for managing the chal-
lenges posed by Li-ion battery aging and degradation with fewer computational resources.
There is a further notable improved method proposed in the paper [108] in 2023,
which presents the Variational Bayesian Maximum Correntropy Cubature Kalman Filter
(VBMCCKF) for accurate State-of-Charge (SOC) estimation in lithium-ion batteries. This
method enhances SOC estimation by combining advanced filtering and statistical tech-
niques. Cubature Kalman Filter (CKF) provides high-accuracy SOC estimation through
nonlinear state space modeling. The Variational Bayesian Approach is used to improve
measurement error covariance estimation by using Bayesian inference. This approach
enables the algorithm to adaptively estimate the covariance matrix of measurement errors,
addressing the uncertainty and variability in noise that simpler methods might not fully
capture. The Variational Bayesian method refines the accuracy of the covariance estimates,
leading to more reliable SOC predictions. The Maximum Correntropy Criterion’s main
advantage is that it robustly suppresses measurement outliers by optimizing the filter
performance against non-Gaussian noise. This criterion enhances the filter’s ability to
handle irregularities in the measurement data, which can degrade the performance of tradi-
tional filters. The VBMCCKF method showed significant improvements in SOC estimation
accuracy, with a reduction in the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) of 77% compared to the Ex-
tended Kalman Filter (EKF), 68% compared to the Cubature Kalman Filter (CKF), and 49%
compared to the Variational Bayesian Cubature Kalman Filter (VBCKF). By combining Vari-
ational Bayesian error estimation with robust outlier handling, the VBMCCKF maintained
high performance even in the presence of noisy and irregular data [108]. This advanced
approach not only boosts estimation accuracy but also enhances the robustness of Battery
Management Systems, contributing to extended battery life and a more reliable operation.
As demonstrated by the substantial volume of research, significant advancements
have been made in enhancing classical Kalman Filter-based approaches. However, it is
also crucial to acknowledge other notable methodologies that have emerged, offering
substantial practical significance in the field.
A particularly important area of recent study is the development of battery aging
models designed to take into account the impact of user charging practices on battery
degradation in electric vehicles.
The study presented in 2024 by [109] introduces a comprehensive battery aging model
that investigates the impact of user charging behaviors on the degradation of batteries
in Electric Vehicles. This model systematically incorporates critical aging parameters,
including the SOC, battery temperature (TBat ), time, and the number of full equivalent
cycles (NFECs), to provide a nuanced understanding of how these factors collectively
influence battery longevity.
The model is composed of two main components. The first part focuses on aging
related to SOC and temperature. The capacity loss is expressed by as follows:
 
− Ea
dClosst→t+dt = d ( A + B · SOC)e k B TBat ·tz (14)

where Ea is the activation energy; k B is the Boltzmann constant; and A, B, and z are
parameters associated with SOC, temperature, and time. The second part of the model
accounts for the impact of NFEC on aging, which is given by:

dCloss(t → t + dt) = k FEC · NFEC (15)

The novelty of the model proposed by [109] lies in its integration of the battery
model with aging as a subsystem of the Electric Vehicle (EV), encompassing all oper-
ational modes—parking, driving, and charging. This comprehensive approach allows
for a detailed simulation of battery degradation by considering the interactions between
different subsystems.
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 16 of 40

A key feature of this model is its use of the Energetic Macroscopic Representation
(EMR) [110] formalism. The EMR formalism, developed in 2000, is a graphical tool that
organizes the interconnections between subsystems systematically, representing power
flows and causal relationships between different components. This unified framework
enhances the accuracy of the simulations by ensuring that all subsystems interact correctly.
By incorporating the EMR formalism, the model provides a structured and integrated
approach to understanding how various charging practices and operational scenarios affect
battery aging. The simulations reveal that strategies such as reducing the frequency of
charging can significantly extend battery lifespan. Specifically, charging every four days
instead of daily increases the time required to reach 80% of the battery’s State-of-Health
by 36%.
The use of the EMR formalism is crucial for achieving this level of integration and
accuracy, as it facilitates the systematic modeling of complex interactions within the battery
system and between subsystems. The proposed approach [109] represents a significant
advancement in optimizing battery management and understanding the impact of different
charging practices on battery aging.

3.5. Summary
To conclude, the three modeling techniques highlighted in this subsection represent
main approaches that reflect successful advancements in both SOC estimation and battery
aging models. These developments indicate that researchers are increasingly focused
on enhancing complexity and accuracy, taking into account the demands of real-time
applications and the impacts of environmental factors.
New methods, such as AIC-SE and VBMCCKF, offer significant advantages in the
accuracy of SOC estimation and computational efficiency. For instance, the AIC-SE method
improves SOC estimation accuracy to ±0.8% compared to the traditional Unscented Kalman
Filter (UKF), with an RMS error of less than 0.3%. In contrast, the VBMCCKF, which com-
bines the Variational Bayesian method with the maximum correntropy criterion, reduced
the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) by 77% compared to the Extended Kalman Filter (EKF),
marking a significant advancement in SOC estimation.
The VBMCCKF effectively handles the dynamic estimation of measurement error
and performs well in noisy environments due to its combination of Variational Bayes
and the maximum correntropy criteria. Additionally, the AIC-SE provides a robust and
computationally efficient solution but may not achieve the same high level of accuracy as
the VBMCCKF.
Therefore, if accuracy and noise handling are the primary concerns, techniques uti-
lizing the combination of Variational Bayes and maximum correntropy criteria may be
favored and considered the best among current approaches. However, if computational
efficiency and real-time applications are prioritized, the AIC-SE could also be a good choice,
indicating that ECM modeling approaches still hold great advantages in this respect.
Additionally, the battery aging model presented in the 2024 study integrates the effects
of SOC, temperature, and the number of full cycles on degradation, which is indeed a good
approach if optimizing battery lifespan with respect to charging practices is essential.
Overall, these developments not only enhance the accuracy of SOC estimation but
also contribute to longer battery life and more reliable operation.

4. State-of-Health (SOH) Estimation Techniques

This subsection examines traditional SOH estimation methods that are widely em-
ployed in both academic and industrial settings, as summarized in Table 4. These methods
focus on fundamental parameters, such as capacity degradation, internal resistance, and cy-
cle life, providing essential insights into battery performance.
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 17 of 40

Table 4. Traditional Approaches for State of Health Estimation

Aspect Formula Parameters Notes

Capacity Degradation [111]

Capacity
 Degradation  (%) = Current Capacity, Original Measures the percentage
Current Capacity Capacity decrease in battery capacity.
1 − Original Capacity × 100

Voc (open-circuit voltage), Measures resistance by

Internal Resistance [112] Voc −Vload Vload (voltage under load), I comparing voltage drop
Rint = I
(current) under load.
Number of cycles before Empirically measured;
capacity drops below a indicates the number of cycles
Cycle Life, e.g., [113] Capacity Threshold
specified percentage of until capacity falls below
original capacity a threshold.
Measures the percentage of
Self-Discharge Rate [114]
Self-Discharge
  (%) =
Rate
Capacity Loss, Initial Capacity capacity lost over time when
Capacity Loss
Initial Capacity × 100 the battery is not in use.
Voltage Deviation(%) =
Nominal Voltage−Measured Voltage Nominal Voltage, Measured Measures the deviation of
Voltage Deviation [111] Nominal Voltage ×
Voltage actual voltage from nominal.
100
General health measure,
State-of-Health (SOH), SOH(%) = Current Capacity, Original
Current Capacity reflecting capacity relative
e.g., [111] × 100 Capacity
Original Capacity to original.
Current Capacity, Original
Capacity Degradation(%) =
Temperature-Adjusted  Capacity, α (temperature Adjusts capacity degradation
Current Capacity
Capacity Degradation , 1 − Original Capacity × coefficient), T (current based on
e.g., [111] temperature), Tre f (reference temperature variation.
 
1 + α( T − Tre f ) × 100
temperature)
Rint,re f (reference internal
resistance), β (temperature
Temperature-Adjusted Rint =  coefficient), T (current
Adjusts internal resistance
Internal Resistance, e.g., [115] Rint,re f × 1 + β( T − Tre f ) based on temperature.
temperature), Tre f (reference
temperature)
SOH can be estimated by
SOH(%) = K1 × comparing the estimated SOC
SOH Calculation Using K (constant), SOCestimated ,
(SOCestimated − SOCmeasured ) × to the measured SOC,
Model, e.g., [102] SOCmeasured
100 adjusted by
model parameters.

The inclusion of the brief collection of the these traditional techniques serves to
highlight the foundational approaches that have historically underpinned battery health
assessments. By understanding these established methodologies, we can better appreciate
the advancements introduced in the subsequent chapter. Newer estimation methods often
leverage more sophisticated data analysis and predictive modeling techniques, addressing
the limitations inherent in traditional approaches. Thus, the juxtaposition of these two
categories of methods will elucidate the evolution of SOH estimation, illustrating how
contemporary practices enhance accuracy and adaptability in battery management systems.

4.1. Recent Methods for Replacing Classical SOH Estimation Methods, Improved Aging Models
Applicable in EVs
Recent developments in SOH estimation have focused on replacing classical methods
with more sophisticated models that incorporate improved aging mechanisms, particularly
those applicable in EVs.
An effective strategy for enhancing the accuracy of SOH predictions involves the
development of novel health indicators used in combination with traditional Machine
Learning techniques. In this context, ref. [116] introduces a new health indicator, the Degra-
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 18 of 40

dation Speed Ratio, as an innovative alternative to the traditional SOH metrics for assessing
battery performance. The DSR is derived from directly measured parameters—specifically
voltage and time—thereby obviating the need for a full charging cycle, which leads to a
reduction in battery resting times by approximately 84%. This indicator demonstrates a
robust correlation with battery capacity and serves as a critical marker for determining
battery end-of-life (EOL). Accordingly, the DSR is derived from the voltage curves during
charging cycles. As batteries age, the time required to reach a target voltage decreases,
reflecting a degradation in the battery’s health. The slope of the voltage curves during
charging is calculated using the formula:

V4.1 − V4.0
m= , (16)
t2 − t1

where V4.1 and V4.0 are voltages at two points, and t2 and t1 are the corresponding times.
For end-of-life cycles, the slope is denoted as

V4.1 − V4.0
m0 = . (17)
t20 − t10

As demonstrated by the study in [116], the Degradation Speed Ratio (DSR) is deter-
mined by comparing the slopes across multiple charging cycles, specifically indicating the
rate of degradation within a defined voltage range, such as [3.8–3.9 V], and is measured in
mV/s. This ratio effectively reflects the degradation speed of the battery, where a higher
DSR value signifies a more pronounced capacity fade. The study demonstrates that utiliz-
ing the DSR in combination with a Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) [117] model and a
Multilayer Perceptron Neural Network (MLPNN) model yields highly accurate estimates
of capacity loss and degradation. This novel approach exhibits improved sensitivity and
precision when compared to existing models. The limitations of conventional models in
detecting the early stages of degradation have been noted by [116], who argue that these
traditional approaches often lack the sensitivity necessary for accurate early detection.
In contrast, the method proposed in the same study has demonstrated a significant en-
hancement in predictive accuracy. Meanwhile, ref. [118] also highlighted the limitations
associated with relying solely on traditional SOH metrics, which tend to be less responsive
to subtle changes in battery health. The incorporation of the DSR, as proposed by [116],
effectively addresses these issues by offering a more robust measure of degradation.
Significant early efforts have been made to advance the traditional equivalent circuit
model (ECM) approach, particularly for applications in electric transportation. For instance,
a method from 2015 for estimating the SOH of lithium-ion batteries in electric vehicles,
utilizing the conventional ECM approach, is presented in [119]. This method involves ana-
lyzing the bulk capacitance of the equivalent RC circuit model. It introduces an innovative
algorithm designed to compute the attenuation factor of the bulk capacitance across various
cycles, as well as a discrete nonlinear observer tailored for precise identification of this
capacitance. The system is discretized at sampling intervals to improve both accuracy and
reliability. Experimental results validate the method’s efficiency in accurately estimating
SOH [119].
In contrast, a more recent paper from 2024 [120] applies an improved strategy to the
basic equivalent circuit model (ECM) by incorporating a second-order hybrid equivalent
circuit model and an adaptive update rate to account for temperature effects. This approach
utilizes a nonlinear observer with integrated filters to accurately estimate the SOH, demon-
strating a mean absolute error of less than 0.5% and a Root Mean Square Error of less than
0.2% in SOH estimation.
Furthermore, the latest cloud solutions [52] published in 2023 continue to utilize tra-
ditional equivalent circuit-based gray-box modeling approach, yet they reveal that eight
months of monitoring data can achieve a level of precision previously unattainable in the
past by model parameter estimation using standard laboratory tests. This study presents
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 19 of 40

also a tuning procedure for a moving window least squares algorithm designed to estimate
the parameters of a 2-RC equivalent circuit battery model, leveraging real-time data col-
lected from a test vehicle and uploaded to the Stellantis-CRF cloud. The application of this
cloud-based approach to extensive road tests demonstrated minimal estimation errors, ri-
valing those typically found in controlled laboratory environments. By consistently tracking
the estimated model parameters over time, the authors reported accurate SOH evaluation,
which effectively identifies the early signs of battery aging with unprecedented accuracy.
In light of previous advancements, the paper [121] introduces a new framework for pre-
dicting the SOH of lithium-ion batteries, addressing the limitations inherent in traditional
measurement approaches. The framework represents a significant shift from conventional
methods by integrating three sophisticated techniques: linear statistical k-nearest neighbors
(LSKNNs) for data interpolation and noise reduction, maximal information entropy search
(MIES) for feature selection, and collective sparse variational Gaussian process regression
(CSVGPR) for SOH forecasting.
Turning now to the specific components of the framework, LSKNNs is initially em-
ployed to estimate missing data points and to filter out noise from incomplete charging
measurements. Subsequently, MIES is used to refine the feature set by removing features
that exhibit minimal correlation with SOH. This selective approach ensures that only the
most pertinent features are utilized. Finally, CSVGPR addresses uncertainties in the data,
thereby enhancing the accuracy of SOH predictions. In terms of evaluation, the framework
was tested using NASA’s battery dataset, comparing its performance against other statisti-
cal learning methods. Quantitatively, the framework demonstrated superior performance
in SOH estimation. For instance, compared to methods such as ElasticNet, Support Vec-
tor Regression (SVR), Random Forest, and Gradient Boosting, the proposed framework
reduced the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) by 77.8%, from the lowest RMSE value of
0.0510 (ElasticNet) to 0.0113. Furthermore, when compared to Gaussian Process models
with different kernels (e.g., Matern 32, Matern 52, Squared Exponential, etc.), the RMSE was
reduced by 55.5% from 0.0254 to 0.0113, confirming the robustness and superior accuracy
of the proposed framework.

4.2. Summary
Recent advancements in SOH estimation emphasize the shift from classical meth-
ods to more sophisticated models tailored for Electric Vehicles. Selected papers are pre-
sented in this subsection representing the leading modeling approaches: the degradation
model in combination with classical Machine Learning [116], ECM-based methods, and a
hybrid approach.
A notable innovation is the Degradation Speed Ratio (DSR), which improves predic-
tion efficiency by eliminating the need for full charging cycles, reducing waiting times by
approximately 84%. The DSR has shown a strong correlation with battery capacity, making
it a crucial metric for determining battery end-of-life (EOL). Combining the DSR with Ma-
chine Learning techniques like a Multilayer Perceptron Neural Networks (MLPNNs) has
yielded highly accurate estimates of capacity loss, surpassing traditional models that strug-
gle with early degradation detection. For instance, these combined methods demonstrate
significant improvements in sensitivity and precision.
Innovations in the equivalent circuit modeling approach have also contributed to
enhanced SOH estimation. Recent approaches incorporating second-order hybrid ECM
models have achieved mean absolute errors of less than 0.5% and Root Mean Square Errors
under 0.2% [120]. Cloud-based solutions utilizing extensive road test data have shown that
real-time monitoring can lead to highly accurate SOH evaluations by using ECM model [52].
This also suggest the potential of the improved ECM-based approaches. This trend, which
can be drawn form the above, is in accordance with the above conclusion about the SOC-
based techniques, where the ECM-based approaches with various improvements still are
in the main line.
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 20 of 40

It can be seen that, next to the ECM-based approaches, hybrid techniques [121] pro-
vide outstanding precision, which notably outperform earlier techniques. Despite the
complexity of the hybrid method, which makes the realtime application challenging, this
framework presents a significant advancement over traditional SOH estimation approaches
by effectively addressing the key challenges of data interpolation, feature selection, and un-
certainty management.
Overall, these developments indicate a strong focus on real-time applications and
data-driven approaches, significantly advancing the reliability of battery management
systems in EVs.
The latest deep learning approaches, particularly LSTM, CNNs, and hybrid techniques,
have emerged as the most popular methods for SOH estimation. The following chapter
presents selected works that represent the key trends identified during the screening pro-
cess, offering snapshots of how these techniques have contributed to successful outcomes.

5. Deep Learning Applications in SOH Estimation

5.1. LSTM and Hybrid Models
In this review, several of the selected works employ techniques that align with one
of the key approaches, utilizing improved aging models similar to those discussed in
previous sections to enhance estimation accuracy. However, for Remaining Useful Life
prediction, the integration of deep learning techniques becomes indispensable, as it has
been demonstrated by [122].
A new comprehensive SOH degradation model, which integrates deep learning with
an enhanced SOH degradation model that incorporates additional factors beyond the
basic capacity ratio is suggested by [122]. The proposed technique put the emphasis
on that the battery health degradation is influenced by various operational conditions,
including charging and discharging currents, as well as temperature effects. Specifically,
the model integrates the following elements: battery operating state defined by the charging
current during charging and the discharging current during operation; operating time
represented by the duration of charging and discharging cycles; temperature effects by
including environmental temperature data during discharging and charging temperature
data, which are crucial for reflecting real-world conditions and the battery’s thermal
management system.
The approximate SOH degradation model under the real operating environment of
the battery model proposed by [122] is as follows:

[( Ic (i ) × d1 + Tc (i ) × d2 ) × tc (i )] + [( Id (i ) × d3 + Td (i ) × d4 ) × td (i )]
∆SOH(i ) = × ∆SOH, (18)
∑[( Ic (i ) × d1 + Tc (i ) × d2 ) × tc (i )] + ∑[( Id (i ) × d3 + Td (i ) × d4 ) × td (i )]

in which Ic and Id represent the the normalized average charging and discharging currents,
Tc and Td denote the normalized battery and environmental temperatures, tc and td stand
for the charging and discharging times, while d1 , d2 , d3 , and d4 are the weights assigned to
different influencing factors.
This comprehensive model offers a more accurate representation of battery degra-
dation by incorporating multiple operational factors and temperature effects. Unlike the
simple capacity ratio model, it considers how varying conditions during charging and
discharging, as well as thermal management, influence the overall health of the battery.
This results in a more precise estimation of SOH under real-world conditions. Furthermore,
the paper introduces a Remaining Useful Life (RUL) prediction model based on Long
Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks. This model enhances the prediction accuracy over
a four-month period by capturing temporal dependencies through the integration with
LSTM. While this approach improves prediction accuracy, it also introduces increased com-
putational complexity, which poses challenges for real-time implementation on in-vehicle
processors. This complexity indicates a need for optimization in future work to facilitate
practical applications.
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 21 of 40

Additionally, the study points out that neural networks are particularly adept at
handling time-dependent battery processes, with their ability to continuously learn proving
highly beneficial. This feature allows the models to maintain accuracy and relevance with
minimal computational cost, addressing the evolving electrical behavior of batteries over
time. Such adaptability ensures that battery models remain reliable throughout the battery’s
operational lifespan, offering substantial advantages in real-world automotive applications.
While the previous study focused on integrating deep learning techniques for pre-
cise Remaining Useful Life (RUL) prediction and battery degradation modeling under
real-world conditions, the subsequent work in [123] shifts attention to Machine Learning
approaches for efficient SOH estimation. Although both studies employ different tech-
niques, they belong to the family of hybrid approaches aimed at achieving more accurate
state assessment and prediction. In the first case, the model combines deep learning to
enhance SOH degradation estimation, while [123] integrates machine learning and fea-
ture extraction techniques to achieve high-accuracy SOH estimation while minimizing
computational load for online applicability.
In [123], the authors emphasize the critical role of feature extraction in accurately
assessing the State-of-Health (SOH) of batteries, particularly in adapting laboratory data
to operational fleet-level data. By extracting six key features from partial ranges, their
proposed data processing pipeline effectively captures the battery’s aging state. Three Ma-
chine Learning (ML) algorithms were utilized for easy online deployment, demonstrating
that the hybrid feature set achieved high SOH estimation accuracy, with a minimum Root
Mean square error (RMSE) of 0.36%. Importantly, the inclusion of voltage-based features
significantly enhanced the accuracy of battery state evaluation, improving it by up to 20%.
Next, the work by Anas et al. in [124] expands on these hybrid approaches by re-
viewing advanced deep learning methods for predicting the Remaining Useful Life (RUL)
of batteries. Their principal innovation is the synthesis of various deep learning mod-
els—including Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM),
Gated Recurrent Units (GRUs), and their bidirectional variants—into hybrid frameworks
like CNN-LSTM-DNN, and CNN-GRU-DNN. These models utilize a wide range of fea-
tures, such as voltage, current, temperature, and their time-series averages, to enhance the
accuracy of RUL predictions.
The study includes a comprehensive benchmark analysis comparing the performance
of these new hybrid models against existing methodologies using NASA datasets, revealing
a notable improvement up to a 90.5% reduction in the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)
compared to previous models. Their research demonstrates that integrating diverse neural
network architectures in these hybrid models effectively manages the complexities of
battery datasets. However, the computational intensity and complexity of these models
may limit their practical application in real-time scenarios. While they show significant
value in controlled laboratory environments with ample data and computational resources,
further refinement may be needed for real-world implementation to optimize efficiency
and scalability.
Multi-model approaches are also popular hybrids, such as a bank of LSTMs. The method
described in [53] employs a sophisticated framework consisting of four neural network
models: one dedicated to estimating the SOH and three forming a “neural network model
bank”—designated as normal, caution, and fault models—for SOC estimation. This method
integrates a range of parameters, including time, voltage, current, temperature, and previous
SOC values, to enhance the accuracy of predictions. Experimental results indicate that
the Long Short-Term Memory model significantly surpasses other models in performance,
delivering more reliable estimates of SOC and SOH, thereby improving the overall efficiency
of the battery management systems.
Moreover, the Gated Recurrent Unit combined with the soft-sensing method has
demonstrated significant potential for accurate long-term Remaining Useful Life predictions
of Li-ion batteries, as discussed in [125]. Although effective in controlled environments
with historical data, the practical implementation of this method may encounter challenges
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 22 of 40

due to varying real-world charging conditions. Therefore, while the method is well-suited
for laboratory settings, further adaptation and validation are necessary to ensure reliable
deployment in real-world scenarios where battery usage conditions fluctuate.
In [54], the focus shifts to addressing battery degradation through the estimation of
SOH using data-driven methodologies. The study utilizes extensive datasets, encompassing
voltage, current, and temperature information obtained from the NASA Prognostics Center
of Excellence. The data underwent Fourier Resampling before being analyzed using three
machine learning techniques: Long Short-Term Memory, Deep Neural Networks (DNNs),
and GRUs. Hyperparameter tuning was applied to optimize these algorithms, aiming
to improve accuracy while mitigating computational complexity. Among the evaluated
techniques, GRUs achieved strong performance, with a Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of
0.003, a Mean Absolute Error (MAE) of 0.003, and an R-squared error of 0.004. These results
affirm the effectiveness of GRUs for SOH estimation across various battery samples and
provide significant insights for precise battery performance evaluation and maintenance
planning. While GRUs has shown remarkable results, methods that combine GRUs with
LSTM networks generally offer enhanced performance, particularly in scenarios requiring
the modeling of long-term dependencies.
LSTM networks have gained considerable attention and demonstrated significant
effectiveness in recent advancements, particularly in the method for SOH estimation of
lithium-ion batteries presented in [55]. This method employs an LSTM network that excels
in managing time-series data. The approach begins with a comprehensive analysis of the
battery’s charge–discharge voltage curve and incremental capacity (IC) curve to derive
meaningful handcrafted features (HFs) designed to capture essential patterns associated
with battery degradation. To enhance the relevance of these features, the authors utilizes
Grey Relational Analysis (GRA) and the Entropy Weight Method (EWM), refining the
selection process to ensure that the most pertinent features are incorporated into the model.
The selected five HFs are subsequently fed into the LSTM network for SOH prediction.
The Adam optimization algorithm is employed to optimize the parameters of the LSTM
model, thereby improving training efficiency and predictive accuracy. Experimental results
demonstrate that this method achieved a maximum estimation error of 4.55% when trained
on 60% of the cycle data for a single battery. Even when utilizing training data from only
one battery, the SOH estimation error for other cells remained below 5.99%. These results
indicate that the proposed method surpasses traditional models such as Elman Neural
Networks [126], Support Vector Machines (SVMs) [127], and Gaussian Process Regression
(GPR) [117], offering enhanced accuracy and robustness in SOH prediction.
In [128], a novel neural network model is introduced for estimating the RUL of energy
storage batteries, named the Multi-Feature Fusion and Dual-Attention Long Short-Term
Memory (MDA-LSTM) network. This model diverges from conventional approaches that
rely solely on battery capacity by incorporating multiple features and temporal information.
The MDA-LSTM network integrates a Multi-Feature Fusion (MFF) module to strengthen
the model’s capacity to exploit various feature dependencies and employs a Dual-Attention
Module (DAM), which includes both local and global attention mechanisms to capture
short-term and long-term temporal dependencies. The effectiveness of the proposed model
was validated through experiments conducted on multiple datasets, including those from
NASA and the CALCE datasets. The results demonstrate that the Multi-Feature Fusion
and Dual Attention Long Short-Term Memory (MDA-LSTM) network surpasses existing
baseline methods, achieving superior prediction accuracy. Comprehensive testing and
feature selection experiments affirm the model’s robustness and generalizability across
diverse datasets.
Further approaches using LSTM include a novel method for predicting the SOH of
Li-ion batteries, employing a stacked BiLSTM deep neural network with data exclusively
from constant current charging [129]. This method leverages parameters such as charging
current, voltage, measured current, voltage, and temperature to forecast SOH accurately. It
is particularly effective during the constant current phase of charging, with prediction er-
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 23 of 40

rors reducing to 5.5% Root Mean Square Error and a capacity RMSE of 0.033 Ampere-hours
as more data were included. The stacked BiLSTM model, benefiting from its bidirectional
structure, integrates both forward and backward data during training, resulting in more
reliable SOH predictions compared to traditional recurrent networks or unidirectional
LSTMs. This model is thus well suited for real-time SOH estimation during quick charg-
ing operations.
To advance the field further, the study presented by [130] addresses the ongoing
challenges of optimizing algorithms for Battery Management Systems in electric and hybrid
Electric Vehicles, with a particular focus on accurately estimating the SOC, SOH, and RUL
of lithium-ion batteries, which are characterized by their nonlinear and complex behavior.
The authors introduce a novel approach by integrating a Long Short-Term Memory network
into an AI-based BMS framework. Given that LSTM networks are particularly effective for
sequence problems, their application in dynamic battery state estimation is well justified,
as evidenced by previous studies.
The main innovation of the work by Nagarale et al. [130] lies in the implementation
of the LSTM model on a Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA), specifically using the
Xilinx Zynq System-on-Chip (SOC) PYNQ Z2 board. While the use of GPUs and ASICs is
prevalent in AI applications, this study underscores the advantages of FPGAs, such as lower
power consumption and higher-speed processing, which are essential for real-time BMS ap-
plications in EVs. The design employs Python for model training and validation and Xilinx
Vitis High-Level Synthesis (HLS) tools for synthesis. However, a key issue that needs to be
raised is the practicality of deploying FPGAs in commercial EVs. The implementation of the
LSTM network on an FPGA, as presented in [130], appears to be more of a proof-of-concept
rather than a fully developed solution ready for commercial deployment. The cost and
practicality of integrating FPGAs into a vehicle’s BMS may pose significant challenges,
limiting its widespread application. Although the results demonstrating low Root Mean
Square Error (RMSE) values—0.3438 during training and 0.3681 during validation—are
promising and suggest high model accuracy, transitioning to a commercially viable solution
will require addressing these cost and scalability concerns associated with FPGA usage.
While the experimental results are promising and demonstrate the accuracy and robustness
of the proposed BMS, this raises many questions regarding whether the FPGA-based ap-
proach can be scaled efficiently and economically for real-world applications. The study’s
focus on technical feasibility rather than commercial applicability highlights a common
pitfall in the literature, where the emphasis on innovation can sometimes overshadow
considerations of practicality.
To highlight again the problem of available only partial operation history data,
the fresh study of [39] addresses the issue of partial data by developing a TCN-LSTM
model for accurate OCV reconstruction. The model uses synthetic data from an automotive
NCA cell and is refined with Bayesian optimization. It excels in reconstructing the OCV,
with an MAE below 22 mV, and in estimating the SOH, with a MAPE below 2.2%, even
when trained with limited experimental data. The advanced use of transfer learning allows
the model to effectively generalize across different battery chemistries, although limitations
in extrapolation were noted when data were insufficient.
In addition to the existing techniques, deep fusion, a hybrid approach also, proves
effective for battery SOH estimation, especially in real-world conditions where traditional
methods often struggle. The paper [131] presents a framework for estimating battery SOH
in on-road EVs by extracting labeled capacities from historical data of 707 EVs over three
years. This approach achieves a Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) of less than 2.97%
through full charge and discharge tests. It leverages 22 health indicators (HIs) and 4 HI
sequences derived from partial charging data. Two models were developed: a global SOH
estimation framework utilizing Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) [117], similar to the
approach in paper [132], which yielded an MAPE of 2.07% in repeated validations, and a
Deep Fusion Transfer Learning Network (DFTN) for individual EVs, achieving an average
MAPE of 1.42%, with the best vehicle reaching an MAPE of 0.23%.
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 24 of 40

5.2. CNN and CNN-LSTM-Integrated Models

In the paper by Yao et al. (2024) [51], an innovative method, CNN–WNN–WLSTM,
is introduced, integrating Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), Wavelet Neural Net-
works (WNNs), and Wavelet Long Short-Term Memory (WLSTM) networks. The CNN
component automatically extracts features from raw battery data, while the WNN and
WLSTM modules process these features and estimate the SOH, leveraging the rapid con-
vergence of WNN and the time series analysis capabilities of WLSTM. The RMSprop
optimizer is employed to enhance performance compared to the Adagrad optimizer. Ex-
perimental results using data from the NASA Ames Prognostics Center demonstrate that
CNN–WNN–WLSTM outperforms other machine learning methods, including traditional
backpropagation neural networks and Gaussian Process Regression, in both accuracy and
robustness. This positions CNN–WNN–WLSTM as a promising approach for advanced
battery health management.
Turning to more advanced techniques, the recent study by Wang et al. (2022) [56]
presents a novel approach to lithium battery capacity prediction through a combined
Convolutional Neural Network–Long Short-Term Memory–Conditional Random Field
(CNN-LSTM-CRF) model. Inspired by methods from natural language processing (NLP),
this model represents a significant application of a CRF layer in predicting battery remaining
useful life. The incorporation of CRFs facilitates a more intuitive representation of capacity
decline over time by effectively capturing dependencies between output variables—a
crucial aspect for tasks involving structured outputs such as sequences or grids.
In this model, the CNN component efficiently extracts feature data, while the LSTM
module excels at identifying temporal trends, thereby enhancing the accuracy of battery
capacity predictions. Ablation experiments confirm the CRF layer’s contribution to im-
proved prediction performance. Overall, the CNN-LSTM-CRF model surpasses previous
approaches in battery capacity prediction, with the innovative use of CRFs representing a
significant advancement, particularly in terms of interpretability regarding capacity decline.
However, the model’s computational demands must be considered. The CRF layer, es-
pecially when integrated with deep learning architectures like CNNs and LSTMs, requires
substantial computational resources for both training and inference. The extensive parame-
ter computation, complex dynamic programming, and management of large datasets may
exceed the capabilities of standard in-vehicle processors, which are typically optimized for
simpler, low-latency tasks. Future research should address these challenges, potentially
through techniques such as transfer learning, to enhance the model’s practicality for real-
time applications in battery management systems. This proposed direction for future work
underscores the model’s potential as a valuable tool in the industry.
Another study [133] also utilizes LSTM for battery capacity forecasting by introducing
an advanced LSTNet model. This approach first segments discharged battery data into
long-term and short-term sequences, integrating a Convolutional LSTM (ConvLSTM) to
capture complex capacity features and incorporating an autoregressive (AR) component to
improve robustness while using a shortcut connection structure to accelerate convergence.
The model combines outputs from both linear and nonlinear components to enhance
predictive performance. Testing on two datasets, including data from four batteries in the
NASA dataset [134], reveals that the model effectively tracks capacity degradation curves,
achieving a maximum Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of 0.65%, a Mean Absolute Error
(MAE) of 0.58%, and a Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) of 0.435% with 40% of the
data allocated for training, validating the model’s accuracy and practicality.
In a significant development, the paper by Yan et al. (2024) [135] introduces a novel
methodology for predicting the Remaining Useful Life (RUL) of solid-state lithium-ion
batteries (SSLIBs). This study integrated an enhanced Convolutional Neural Network
(CNN) with a newly proposed optimization algorithm, the Energy Circle Sparrow Search
Algorithm (ECSSA). This approach leverages the advanced feature extraction capabilities of
the improved CNN while optimizing model parameters using the ECSSA, demonstrating
improved accuracy in RUL predictions. This methodological advancement highlights
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 25 of 40

the trend of combining sophisticated neural network architectures with innovative op-
timization techniques to tackle complex battery management challenges. The CNN’s
enhancements focus on optimizing hyperparameters and adjusting its structure to improve
feature extraction and predictive accuracy.
The CNN employs advanced convolutional layers characterized by kernel sizes k × k
and varying stride lengths s. The convolution operation is mathematically defined as

Conv( x ) = f (W ∗ x + b) (19)

where W represents the kernel weights, ∗ denotes the convolution operation, and b is the
bias term. This formulation illustrates how the network processes input data to extract
meaningful features, which is essential for overall performance.
To model nonlinear relationships effectively, activation functions such as the Exponen-
tial Linear Unit (ELU) are utilized:
(
x if x > 0,
ELU( x ) = x
(20)
α(e − 1) if x ≤ 0

The ELU activation function mitigates the vanishing gradient problem, enabling more
efficient learning.
Another commonly used activation function is the Swish function:

Swish( x ) = x · σ ( x ) (21)

where
1
σ( x) = (22)
1 + e− x
is the sigmoid function. These activation functions enhance the model’s ability to capture
complex patterns in the data.
Residual connections are mathematically expressed as

Output = F( x ) + x (23)

This formulation preserves information across layers, effectively addressing the van-
ishing gradient issue and facilitating the training of deeper networks.
To refine the selection of health indicators (HIs), the method employs Mutual Informa-
tion, which is mathematically defined as

p( x, y)
I ( X; Y ) = ∑ ∑ p( x, y) log
p( x ) p(y)
(24)
x ∈ X y ∈Y

This metric quantifies the dependency between HIs and Remaining Useful Life (RUL),
providing insight into their relevance in the predictive model. Additionally, the k-nearest
neighbor algorithm computes distances:

d ( xi , x j ) (25)

between data points, further assessing HI relevance and improving the CNN’s generaliza-
tion capability.
The mathematical novelty of the ECSSA encompasses several key innovations. Circle
Chaotic Mapping enhances diversity in the initial hyperparameter space through chaotic
sequences, which are represented by

CM(t) = mod(ϕ · t, 1) (26)

Batteries 2024, 10, 356 26 of 40

where ϕ is a chaotic parameter, increasing the exploration of potential solutions. The Non-
linear Attenuation Coefficient is defined as
1
η (t) = (27)
1 + γt

with γ as a scaling factor and t representing iterations. This coefficient dynamically adjusts
the balance between exploration and exploitation during optimization.
Cauchy Mutation is mathematically expressed as

x ′ = x + ∆x (28)

where ∆x ∼ Cauchy(γ), indicating that ∆x follows a Cauchy distribution. Unlike the

more commonly used Gaussian (normal) distribution, which tends to generate smaller,
more incremental changes, the Cauchy distribution introduces larger, more frequent per-
turbations. This is due to the “heavy tails” of the Cauchy distribution, which allow for
occasional large deviations. As a result, this mutation technique is particularly effective in
helping the model escape local optima by encouraging exploration of more diverse regions
of the solution space, whereas Gaussian mutations might result in smaller, more gradual
adjustments, potentially limiting the model’s ability to explore beyond local minima.
Together, these mathematical advancements in CNN architecture and optimization
techniques significantly enhance the accuracy and robustness of RUL predictions, effec-
tively addressing the complex dynamics of SSLIBs. The combined use of PCA and CNN
with feature optimization and dimensionality reduction techniques presents a robust solu-
tion for more accurate and efficient SOH estimation in lithium-ion batteries, as shown in
the paper by Lin et al. (2024) [136]. This novel method integrates feature optimization with
a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) to reduce redundancy in multiple features and
enhance prediction accuracy. The proposed method reduces information redundancy by
optimizing the combination of features derived from electrical, thermodynamic, and electro-
chemical data. This is achieved through Principal Component Analysis (PCA) followed by
CNN, leading to a more efficient representation of battery aging characteristics. The CNN
model is enhanced with feature dimensionality reduction techniques, employing smaller
kernel sizes (2 × 1) and including 64 kernels in the first block and 16 in the second block
to capture detailed feature variations while minimizing model complexity. Activation
functions like ReLU and Sigmoid are used to improve computational efficiency and ensure
that outputs are constrained within the appropriate range. The feature dimension is then
optimized using a simulated annealing algorithm (SA) with a mean-variance objective
function, improving the CNN’s performance by efficiently finding the optimal feature
set, reducing computational resources, and enhancing estimation accuracy. The proposed
method showed a significant improvement in SOH estimation performance compared to
traditional CNN approaches and fixed-dimension PCA-CNN models, achieving more than
a 20% increase in the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and a 30% increase in the Root Mean
Square Error (RMSE) metrics, validating its effectiveness through comparative experiments
on the Oxford dataset [137].
In recent advancements in battery management, innovative methodologies have
emerged to address the challenges of real-time SOH estimation, particularly in handling
incomplete and partially observed data. The paper by Mazzi et al. (2024) [138] contributes
to this area by introducing a sophisticated real-time SOH estimation model that employs a
deep learning (DL) framework. This framework integrates a One-Dimensional Convolu-
tional Network (1D-CNN) with a Bidirectional Gated Recurrent Unit (BiGRU), offering a
robust approach to improving estimation accuracy under conditions of data incomplete-
ness and partial observations. The hybrid CNN-BiGRU model extracts key features from
input data through the 1D-CNN layers, while the BiGRU layers perform sequence learning
in both directions. By using current, voltage, and temperature measurements from the
electric vehicle’s Battery Management System (BMS), this approach avoids complex and
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 27 of 40

time-consuming feature extraction. The model’s hyperparameters were optimized using

Bayesian Optimization (BO) based on a Gaussian Process (GP), achieving a low Mean
Squared Error (MSE) of 1.2 × 10−5 in just 19 iterations. The accuracy of the optimized
model was validated using a NASA-provided lithium-ion battery dataset with multiple
discharge profiles, showing a Mean Absolute Error (MAE) of 2.080% and a Root Mean
Square Error (RMSE) of 2.516% for the investigated battery set, which had 70 cycles at
24 °C. Additionally, it achieved an end-of-life (EOL) indicator error of zero cycles for the
same data.

5.3. Optimization Strategies for Deep Learning Models

The study by Zhi et al. [139] represents a significant advancement in SOH estimation
for lithium-ion batteries. Initially, the Random Forest algorithm is employed to identify
key health factors using data from NASA. Following this, a Support Vector Regression
(SVR) [140] model is developed for estimating the battery’s SOH. To enhance the accuracy
and convergence speed of the SVR model, the Genetic Algorithm (GA) [141]–Particle Swarm
Optimization [142] (PSO) technique was utilized to optimize its parameters. This approach,
which has been validated on four batteries, achieved a Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)
of 0.40% and an average Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) of 0.56%. Compared to the
Genetic Algorithm–Support Vector Regression (GA-SVR) and Particle Swarm Optimization–
Support Vector Regression (PSO-SVR) methods, the proposed approach demonstrated a
reduction in the average RMSE by 0.10% and average MAPE by 0.17%, and it decreased
the number of iterations by seven generations relative to GA-SVR. These findings indicate
that the proposed method offers improved accuracy and efficiency in SOH estimation.
Building on this foundation, Waseem et al. [143] introduce a novel method for estimat-
ing the SOH of lithium-ion batteries through a hybrid approach that integrates Grey Wolf
Optimization (GWO) [144] with Bayesian-Regularized Neural Networks (BRNNs) [145].
This innovative method utilizes health features (HFs) derived from battery charging and
discharging processes, with critical voltage and current characteristics identified through
correlation analysis. GWO was employed to optimize and select hyperparameters for the
BRNN, thereby enhancing the model’s global search capabilities and accuracy.
The promising results of the GWO-BRNN approach are noteworthy; it has been tested
using the NASA battery dataset and has demonstrated superior performance, achieving
SOH estimation errors of less than 1%. This significant improvement over existing methods
underscores the potential of this approach in advancing effective prognostics and health
management for electric vehicle batteries, contributing to the development of eco-friendly
and reliable electric transportation solutions.
However, it is essential to consider the challenges associated with this method. Despite
its high accuracy in SOH estimation and effective hyperparameter optimization, the GWO-
BRNN method presents challenges related to computational complexity. The intricate
nature of GWO and BRNN, combined with the opaque nature of neural networks, poses
difficulties for practical implementation. Although this method excels in controlled labo-
ratory settings where computational resources are abundant, its complexity may limit its
feasibility for real-time applications where resources are constrained and interpretability is
crucial. Thus, for practical applications in Battery Management Systems, simpler or more
interpretable methods may be preferable.
In a complementary approach, another significant contribution presented in [146] is
the development of a novel method for evaluating the SOH and predicting the Remaining
Useful Life (RUL) of Electric Vehicle (EV) batteries using raw data collected directly from
these vehicles. Unlike data obtained from controlled battery experiments, which tend to
be more consistent, EV data frequently encounters challenges such as inconsistent usage
patterns, data errors, extended sampling intervals, and varying environmental conditions.
To address these issues, the authors have introduced several new evaluation features and
employed an interpolation correction method based on data clustering at 1-second intervals.
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 28 of 40

This approach has led to a notable improvement in accuracy, reducing the relative error in
current integration to 0.94%.
Moreover, the study has incorporated the D-NSGA-II [147] optimization method, which
dynamically selects the optimal voltage interval based on temperature variations. This
dynamic approach has further refined SOH estimation and minimized model computation
time. The results of this optimization demonstrate the advantages of the dynamic method,
providing greater flexibility in designing SOH estimators tailored to specific applications.
Nevertheless, accurately estimating the SOH for lithium-ion batteries remains a criti-
cal challenge, especially given that electric vehicles often operate under conditions where
complete charge and discharge cycles are not achieved. This limitation complicates the
direct monitoring of battery capacity and internal resistance, which are traditional indi-
cators of SOH, as was pointed out in [148]. To address this issue, the method in [148]
proposed an indirect SOH estimation method for online EV lithium-ion batteries, utilizing
an arctangent function adaptive Genetic Algorithm combined with a backpropagation (BP)
neural network (ATAGA-BP). The proposed method leverages constant current drop time
(CCDT), constant current drop capacity (CCDC), and maximum constant current drop rate
(MCCDR) during the constant voltage charging stage as health indicators to indirectly
assess battery degradation. The ATAGA-BP algorithm establishes the relationship between
these indicators and the available battery capacity. Simulation results with NASA data
show that this method correlates over 85% with battery capacity, has a 3.7% error in SOH
estimation, and improves the iteration efficiency by 17.8%. This advancement represents a
significant step toward overcoming the limitations of traditional SOH estimation methods
and contributes to the technological readiness of battery monitoring systems.

5.4. Summary
Deep learning applications demonstrate significant advancements in estimating the
SOH of lithium-ion batteries. A notable example is the comprehensive SOH degradation
model introduced by [122], which incorporates various operational factors like charging
currents and temperature effects. This model provides a more nuanced understanding of
battery degradation, moving beyond simplistic capacity ratio metrics.
The use of Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks is particularly significant, as they
excel at capturing temporal dependencies, which are crucial for predicting Remaining Useful
Life (RUL). This integration improves prediction accuracy over time, though it also increases
computational complexity, posing challenges for real-time application in vehicles.
Moreover, feature extraction methods are gaining importance, as demonstrated in [123],
where six key features were identified to optimize SOH estimation while minimizing com-
putational load. This approach shows how Machine Learning can complement deep
learning techniques, achieving high accuracy in state assessment.
Hybrid models that combine different neural network architectures, such as Convolu-
tional Neural Networks (CNNs) with LSTMs, have shown promising results in managing
the complexities of battery datasets. However, practical implementation remains a chal-
lenge due to the high computational demands of these models. Addressing these issues
will be crucial for developing efficient, real-time battery management systems that can
reliably operate in varying real-world conditions.
Optimization strategies, including GA-PSO, GWO-BRNN, and D-NSGA-II, signifi-
cantly improve the accuracy and efficiency of SOH estimation for lithium-ion batteries.
These approaches not only enhance predictive performance but also reduce computational
time, facilitating real-time applications. However, more complex algorithms like GWO-
BRNN pose challenges for practical implementation, highlighting the need to balance
accuracy with execution simplicity. Research also indicates that advanced AI techniques
are crucial for secondary battery applications, where detailed usage data is often lacking.
The subsequent subsection will provide a brief overview of several recently published
studies to illustrate the current state of research in secondary applications, particularly
focusing on the repurposing of batteries.
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 29 of 40

6. Latest Research on Secondary Applications—Brief Outlook to Future

Research Directions
An increasing body of literature is focusing on critical aspects of battery second life,
with [149] offering valuable insights for developing robust qualification algorithms and reli-
able health monitoring systems, while [150] highlights the limitations of conventional SOH
assessment methods due to battery heterogeneity and unknown first-life conditions, advocat-
ing for a novel partial coulometric counter technique to enhance capacity aging evaluation.
Accurate estimation of battery SOC and SOH is essential for extending the lifespan
and optimizing the usage of lithium-ion battery packs in electric vehicles is proposed
in [151]. This paper presents a comprehensive co-estimation approach using an Adaptive
Extended Kalman Filter (AEKF) for second-use lithium-ion batteries under various cycling
conditions. The method involves analyzing battery test data to build a cycle-dependent
equivalent circuit model (cECM) and estimating its parameters with a Recursive Least
Squares (RLS) algorithm. The AEKF then simultaneously estimates SOC and SOH based
on this enhanced model. The approach was validated with a LiCoO2 cell under constant
current conditions, demonstrating high accuracy with SOC errors below 2.2% and SOH
errors (capacity and internal resistance) under 1.7% and 2.2%, respectively. This scheme is
significant for improving the reuse and efficiency of lithium-ion batteries.
The paper [152] introduces an SOH estimation algorithm for lithium-ion batteries
using a Temporal Convolutional Network (TCN). The TCN’s self-learning capability allows
it to model the complex, nonlinear behavior of batteries under varying environmental and
operational conditions throughout their lifespan. The method demonstrated achieves high
accuracy, with a Mean Squared Error (MSE) of less than 1%, even for dynamic load profiles.
Trained on the NASA data as well, this approach has the potential to significantly reduce
the uncertainty associated with the performance of retired electric vehicle batteries used in
second-life applications. The results suggest that the TCN provides a robust and efficient
solution for accurately predicting battery health.
In transitioning from the use of retired Electric Vehicle (EV) battery cells for secondary
applications, it is essential to consider how these batteries can also be effectively integrated
into Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESSs). As EV batteries reach the end of their
automotive life, their residual capacity can be harnessed in stationary storage applications,
contributing to grid stability and peak load management. However, effective integration
of these second-life batteries into BESSs requires careful consideration of both operational
costs and the health of the battery cells.
To address these challenges, the study presented in [153] develops a comprehensive
BESS operation cost model that accounts for the increased costs associated with battery
aging. This model aims to minimize operational costs at each time step using a Particle
Swarm Optimization (PSO) method, which is particularly effective in optimizing complex,
multi-dimensional systems. The results demonstrate that this approach not only optimizes
BESS scheduling costs during peak load shifting but also improves the SOH variation
between battery systems compared to traditional power allocation methods. This finding
is crucial for applications where both new and retired battery systems are used together,
highlighting the potential for second-life batteries to contribute economically to energy
storage solutions.
Additionally, the proposed economic optimization method can be seamlessly inte-
grated into existing BESS scheduling systems to minimize costs in applications such as
EV charging stations and energy trading in the electricity market. This integration under-
scores the dual utility of second-life batteries in both transportation and stationary storage
contexts, making a strong case for their continued development and use.
Further, recent research by [154] examines key degradation factors, such as the forma-
tion of solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) and lithium plating, which contribute to reduced
battery capacity over time. The study emphasizes the importance of accurately estimating
the remaining useful capacity for potential secondary applications or recycling. By focusing
on the incremental capacity analysis method, which tracks battery degradation through
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 30 of 40

detailed data extraction and model training, the study provides precise insights into bat-
tery health. This level of analysis is critical for ensuring the reliability and efficiency of
second-life battery systems, whether in EVs or stationary storage applications.
However, despite these advances, the research [154] points to a critical gap: the lack
of clear standards for regrouping batteries, particularly in relation to cell-to-cell variation.
Understanding how these variations affect overall pack performance is crucial for the relia-
bility and safety of second-life battery applications. Establishing standardized quantitative
approaches that consider self-balancing mechanisms among cells is essential for achieving
consistent performance. While certain cooling structures can mitigate cell-to-cell variation,
they present a trade-off with cost, indicating that a balance must be found.
Regulatory frameworks, such as UL 1974 [155], which address safety and performance
evaluation for used batteries, are early steps in the right direction, which was also empha-
sized in [154]. However, standards like IEC 62933-5-3 [156], which focus on the safety of
second-life battery systems, require further adaptation to encompass the unique challenges
posed by components sourced from used batteries. Consequently, the variability in the
quality of used batteries underscores the current inadequacies of existing testing standards
in accurately reflecting the performance and safety of these systems.
Furthermore, the book chapter published by [152], several critical challenges limit-
ing the application of retired Electric Vehicle (EV) batteries in second-life applications
are delineated.
First, the competitiveness of second-life batteries presents a significant challenge.
The introduction of newer generations of batteries, which offer enhanced quality, perfor-
mance, and lower costs, exacerbates the difficulty of economically exploiting second-life
batteries. This situation could diminish the economic attractiveness of repurposed batteries
and potentially exacerbate the environmental impact of battery manufacturing over its
entire lifecycle [157,158]. In addition, regulatory issues pose a substantial barrier. The cur-
rent regulatory frameworks in many countries do not adequately address the specifics of
second-life batteries. These batteries are classified as hazardous goods, leading to higher
transportation costs due to special handling requirements. Furthermore, the lack of clear
and transparent regulations for battery storage in the energy market complicates the im-
plementation of second-life applications [152]. In addtion, the design of battery packs is
a notable challenge. Battery packs are initially optimized for use in vehicles, which often
does not align with the needs of stationary storage applications. This misalignment results
in increased repurposing costs when the packs are used outside their original intended
application. Integrating second-life repurposing considerations into the initial design could
mitigate these costs, though it may introduce additional expenses during the primary
application phase.
Lastly, there is uncertainty in remaining battery lifetime and performance degradation.
The performance and degradation rates of second-life batteries are highly variable and
depend on numerous factors, such as temperature, depth of discharge, and current rates.
This variability is further compounded by differences in battery chemistry and historical
usage, making it challenging to predict the batteries’ performance reliably in their second
life [159].
Addressing these challenges is crucial for ensuring the safe, economically viable,
and efficient utilization of retired EV batteries in secondary applications.
This situation reveals that the field is still in its formative stages and underscores the
urgent need for extensive research and development to advance standards and practices in
this evolving area.

7. Perspectives
The papers reviewed in this study collectively advance the field of State-of-Health and
State-of-Charge estimation for lithium-ion batteries in EVs through innovative methodolo-
gies and models. The methodologies employed range from traditional machine learning
techniques like Multi-LAyer Perceptrons to advanced deep learning models incorporating
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 31 of 40

LSTM and CNN. Each approach has its own strengths and limitations, making it challeng-
ing to determine a universally superior method. The most interesting results are collected
in Tables 5 and 6, which present the methods for SOH and SOC estimation in increasing
order of accuracy.
However, the accuracy metrics reported in these studies vary, including the MAE,
RMSE, and MAPE. Direct comparisons are complicated by these differences. For instance,
Wu et al. (2024)’s [120] RMSE of 0.2% is significantly lower than Wu et al. (2020)’s [55]
maximum error of 4.55%, indicating that Wu’s (2024) model may be more precise under
the conditions tested. Differences in data handling, such as the proportion of data used for
training and testing, impact the reported accuracy metrics. For example, Ping’s model [133]
uses 40% of the data for training, which may affect its accuracy compared to Wu’s [120]
approach with a different data allocation strategy.
The practical deployment of these models in real-world scenarios requires further
validation. For instance, methods achieving lower error rates in controlled environments
may face challenges when applied to varied real-world conditions. While each approach
has demonstrated its strengths, such as Wu’s [120] high precision and Ping’s [133] inte-
gration of convolutional layers with LSTM, the variability in metrics and data handling
underscores the need for standardized evaluation practices. Note that the Tables above
pertains solely to the selected works; however, it effectively illustrates the trends observed
in the examined period.
This review addresses several key questions related to the application of Machine
Learning (ML) techniques for SOH (and related SOC) estimation in lithium-ion batteries
used in EVs, thus formulated in Section 2 Materials and Methods. Initially, the review iden-
tifies the primary ML techniques currently employed, including traditional methods like
SVR and advanced models such as LSTM-CNN hybrids. These techniques are highlighted
as significant developments in the field, guiding the exploration of algorithms and models
utilized by researchers (Research Question 1).
A noteworthy observation from the sources is that a significant number of research
papers in recent years have focused on advanced machine learning approaches for per-
formance evaluation under conditions of data incompleteness and partial observation.
This review demonstrates that incomplete data still leads to lower accuracy even in more
advanced machine learning models, as highlighted in studies such as [160]. However,
recent studies have shifted towards using more comprehensive datasets, like the NASA
dataset, which significantly improves accuracy and comparability. This transition addresses
the impact of data sources on model performance, emphasizing the need for thorough data
to achieve reliable outcomes (Research Question 2).
Despite these advancements, challenges persist. As shown in Table 5 (e.g., by [148])
and discussed in the review, even the most advanced techniques struggle with the vari-
ability and complexity of real-world data. Field data, in particular, presents issues such
as inconsistent usage patterns and environmental factors, which continue to affect model
performance. Thus, while comprehensive datasets enhance accuracy, the ongoing difficul-
ties highlight the need for further improvements in handling diverse data environments
(Research Question 2 and Research Question 3).
In addition, real-time operation continues to present challenges despite advancements
in data evaluation methodologies. The review supports the idea that cloud solutions can
enhance data processing capabilities. As demonstrated by [52], the continued use of tradi-
tional equivalent circuit-based models in conjunction with cloud technologies has proven
that a greater volume of monitoring data can achieve outstanding precision. This under-
scores the value of big data utilization in improving accuracy through model parameter
estimation, addressing challenges in applying ML techniques in varying environmental
conditions and application scenarios (Research Question 3).
The recent study by Wang et al. (2022) [56] introduces an innovative approach to
lithium battery capacity prediction through a combined Convolutional Neural Network–
Long Short-Term Memory–Conditional Random Field (CNN-LSTM-CRF) model. It is
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 32 of 40

critical to note that while this model demonstrates impressive predictive capabilities, its
computational demands warrant consideration. The CRF layer, particularly when in-
tegrated with deep learning architectures like CNNs and LSTMs, requires substantial
computational resources for both training and inference. This observation highlights an im-
portant aspect of future research directions for improving the accuracy and computational
efficiency of ML-based SOH estimation models, such as adaptability and computational ef-
ficiency (Research Question 5). Future research should address these challenges, potentially
through techniques like transfer learning, to enhance the model’s practicality for real-time
applications in battery management systems.

Table 5. Snapshots of State-of-Health (SOH) estimation methods (2019–2024), highlighting the most
successful models from main modeling approaches. Ordered by accuracy.

Method Accuracy Metrics Model Details

Second-order hybrid equivalent circuit model
Wu et al. (2024) [120] MAE < 0.5%, RMSE < 0.2%
with adaptive update rate, Nonlinear observer
Feature extraction with ML algorithms, Hybrid
Wang et al. (2024) [123] RMSE = 0.36%
feature set
RMSE = 0.003, MAE = 0.003, R-squared
Rao et al. (2024) [54] GRU, LSTM, DNN, NASA data
error = 0.004
Feedforward and Convolutional Neural
Heinrich et al. (2021) [13] Average error deviation = 0.16%, RMSE = 5.57 mV
Networks, In-vehicle sensor data
Zhi et al. (2022) [139] RMSE = 0.40%, MAPE = 0.56% SVR optimized with GA-PSO, NASA data
Anas et al. (2024) [124] 90.5% reduction in RMSE Hybrid deep learning methods, NASA datasets
MAE = 2.080%, RMSE = 2.516%, EOL indicator
Mazzi et al. (2024) [138] 1D-CNN combined with BiGRU, Laboratory data
error = 0 cycles
Superior performance compared to CNN–WNN–WLSTM, NASA Ames Prognostics
Yao et al. (2024) [51]
traditional methods Center data
LSTNet with ConvLSTM and AR component,
Ping et al. (2023) [133] RMSE = 0.65%, MAE = 0.58%, MAPE = 0.435%
NASA data
Yayan (2021) [129] RMSE = 5.5%, Capacity RMSE = 0.033 Ah Stacked BiLSTM, Constant current charging data
Waseem et al.
SOH estimation errors < 1% GWO-BRNN, NASA dataset
(2023) [143]
Hell et al. (2022) [125] Effective in controlled environments GRU with soft-sensing method
Lee et al. (2022) [53] LSTM model significantly surpasses others Neural network model bank for SOC and SOH
Wang et al. (2022) [56] Significant improvement over traditional models CNN-LSTM-CRF model
Zhou et al. (2019) [160] SOH estimation error = 8% GPR-EKF with fragment charge data, Partial data
Li et al. (2022) [148] SOH estimation error = 3.7% ATAGA-BP, Partial data
LSTM network, Handcrafted features (HFs), Grey
Maximum estimation error = 4.55%, Estimation
Wu et al. (2020) [55] Relational Analysis (GRA), Entropy Weight
error < 5.99% for other cells
Method (EWM), Adam optimization, NASA data
VBMCCKF method, even in the presence of noisy
Hafez et al. (2023) [108] 77% MAE reduction compared to EKF
and irregular data
FadeCapacity Degradation Speed Ratio (DSR), reduced
High accuracy
(2022) [116] waiting time
DataDriven (2022) [122] Accurate RUL prediction over 4 months LSTM with CRF
entropy (2022) [121] Effective SOH prognosis LSKNN + MIES + CSVGPR
Bulk Capacitance Method with discrete
2015SOH (2015) [119] High accuracy
nonlinear observer
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 33 of 40

Table 6. Comparison of SOC estimation methods (2019–2024). Snapshots of selected recent successful
solutions with accuracy, representing key examples of different modeling approaches.

Reference Method Name Accuracy

[107] AIC-SE ±0.3% RMS error
77% MAE reduction compared to
[108] VBMCCKF EKF, even in the presence of noisy
and irregular data
Significant improvement in
[109] Aging Model
capacity loss prediction

A significant contribution from Mazzi et al. (2024) [138] introduces a sophisticated real-
time SOH estimation model that employs a deep learning (DL) framework, highlighting
the importance of feature extraction as a crucial task in Machine Learning for battery SOH
estimation. Their study demonstrates that the CNN-BiGRU model, when tested on data
extracted from a vehicle’s Battery Management System (BMS), can avoid complex and
time-consuming feature extraction processes. Interestingly, the study also highlights that
despite the critical impact of temperature on aging, the deep learning model effectively
handles SOH estimation without the need for extensive feature engineering, showcasing
its practicality in real-world applications (Research Question 3).
The correlation between electrical circuit Modeling and advanced Machine Learning
techniques is noteworthy. Combining these traditional methods with deep learning ap-
proaches still offers competitive results, even when compared to the latest deep learning
models. This finding addresses how traditional approaches in SOH estimation evolve
and integrate with ML methods (Research Question 4). The reviewed papers also indicate
that recent studies have extensively explored a variety of Machine Learning (ML) tech-
niques for SOH estimation in lithium-ion batteries. Techniques such as Adaptive Integral
Correction-Based State of Charge Estimation (AIC-SE) and Variational Bayesian Maximum
Correntropy Cubature Kalman Filter (VBMCCKF) have been developed to improve the
accuracy and robustness of SOH estimation. The AIC-SE method enhances SOC estimation
by integrating real-time correction mechanisms, while the VBMCCKF combines advanced
filtering with statistical techniques for superior accuracy in SOC estimation.
Recent advancements include Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), Long Short-
Term Memory (LSTM) networks, and their hybrids (e.g., CNN-LSTM-CRF and CNN-WNN-
WLSTM). These models excel in capturing complex patterns and dependencies in battery
data, achieving significant improvements in accuracy and reliability. New methods, such
as the Degradation Speed Ratio (DSR) and advanced hybrid frameworks like the Multi-
Feature Fusion and Dual Attention Long Short-Term Memory (MDA-LSTM) network, offer
enhanced predictive performance by combining novel health indicators with sophisticated
neural network architectures. Key challenges in applying ML techniques across different
scenarios are identified in this review. Factors such as temperature fluctuations and different
charging practices continue to pose challenges not only for traditional methods but for deep
learning models as well. Models like the AIC-SE and advanced ECM methods address
these issues by incorporating temperature effects and dynamic updates. Techniques such
as LSTM and hybrid models (e.g., CNN-WNN-WLSTM) show improved adaptability
to various usage scenarios, addressing the complexity of real-world battery operations
(Research Question 3). The study effectively compares and integrates ML methods with
traditional SOH estimation approaches. Traditional methods like equivalent circuit models
(ECMs) and Kalman Filters are compared with advanced ML techniques. For example,
the VBMCCKF and hybrid LSTM models demonstrate improvements over traditional
methods such as the Unscented Kalman Filter (UKF) and Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) in
terms of accuracy and noise handling. The integration of ML with traditional approaches,
such as combining ECMs with ML techniques, enhances overall estimation accuracy and
robustness (Research Question 4).
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 34 of 40

Overall, this review concludes several future research directions to advance ML-based
SOH estimation. Future work may focus on improving feature selection, outlier detection,
and adaptation to diverse environmental conditions. Techniques such as the Degradation
Speed Ratio (DSR), a new health indicator, combined with advanced neural network mod-
els (e.g., MDA-LSTM), offer promising pathways for improving accuracy. Research should
aim to optimize algorithms for better computational efficiency, making them suitable for
real-time applications. Innovations such as CNN with feature optimization and dimen-
sionality reduction techniques are examples of efforts to address computational demands.
Additionally, further research should explore methods to integrate multiple data sources
more effectively, leveraging the strengths of both laboratory and field data to improve SOH
estimation models (Research Question 5).
Regarding future work, a brief outlook on battery second usage is provided. This
area is crucial for future research and presents challenges that require more exploration
regarding the application of advanced machine learning techniques. A growing body
of literature emphasizes critical aspects of battery second life, with studies such as [149]
offering valuable insights into developing robust qualification algorithms and reliable
health monitoring systems. This work highlights the limitations of conventional SOH
assessment methods, particularly due to battery heterogeneity and unknown first-life
conditions, as noted by [150]. Crucially, this research advocates for novel techniques
like partial coulometric counters to enhance capacity aging evaluation, addressing gaps
left by traditional methods. Furthermore, accurate estimation of SOC and SOH is vital
for extending the lifespan of lithium-ion batteries, as demonstrated by [151] through a
comprehensive co-estimation approach using Adaptive Extended Kalman Filters (AEKFs).
Despite these advances, current research points to several limitations that remain key
challenges. The challenge of battery heterogeneity and varying operational conditions in
second-life applications remains a significant hurdle. Additionally, the absence of stan-
dardized quantitative approaches for assessing battery performance under partial data
conditions, where data is often inconsistent due to usage patterns, errors, and environ-
mental factors, remains a critical issue. Addressing these limitations will be crucial for
advancing the reliability and efficiency of second-life battery applications and enhancing
the safety and performance of Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESSs).

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Reza, M.; Mannan, M.; Mansor, M.; Ker, P.J.; Mahlia, T.M.I.; Hannan, M. Recent advancement of remaining useful life prediction
of lithium-ion battery in electric vehicle applications: A review of modelling mechanisms, network configurations, factors, and
outstanding issues. Energy Rep. 2024, 11, 4824–4848. [CrossRef]
2. Khawaja, Y.; Shankar, N.; Qiqieh, I.; Alzubi, J.; Alzubi, O.; Nallakaruppan, M.; Padmanaban, S. Battery management solutions for
li-ion batteries based on artificial intelligence. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2023, 14, 102213. [CrossRef]
3. Murnane, M.; Ghazel, A. A Closer Look at State of Charge ( SOC ) and State of Health ( SOH ) Estimation Techniques for Batteries.
Analog Devices 2017, 2, 426–436.
4. Gandoman, F.H.; El-Shahat, A.; Alaas, Z.M.; Ali, Z.M.; Berecibar, M.; Abdel Aleem, S.H.E. Understanding Voltage Behavior of
Lithium-Ion Batteries in Electric Vehicles Applications. Batteries 2022, 8, 130. [CrossRef]
5. Hosseininasab, S.; Lin, C.; Pischinger, S.; Stapelbroek, M.; Vagnoni, G. State-of-health estimation of lithium-ion batteries for
electrified vehicles using a reduced-order electrochemical model. J. Energy Storage 2022, 52, 104684. [CrossRef]
6. Wang, J.; Yang, H.; Wang, Z.; Zhou, Y.; Liu, P.; Hong, J. State of health analysis of batteries at different stages based on real-world
vehicle data and machine learning. J. Energy Storage 2024, 88, 111616. [CrossRef]
7. Ospina Agudelo, B.; Zamboni, W.; Postiglione, F.; Monmasson, E. Battery State-of-Health estimation based on multiple charge
and discharge features. Energy 2023, 263, 125637. [CrossRef]
8. Omakor, J.; Miah, M.S.; Chaoui, H. Battery Reliability Assessment in Electric Vehicles: A State-of-the-Art. IEEE Access 2024,
12, 77903–77931. [CrossRef]
9. Zhang, Y.; Wik, T.; Bergström, J.; Zou, C. State of Health Estimation for Lithium-Ion Batteries Under Arbitrary Usage Using
Data-Driven Multimodel Fusion. IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrif. 2024, 10, 1494–1507. [CrossRef]
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 35 of 40

10. Wang, Y.; Tian, J.; Sun, Z.; Wang, L.; Xu, R.; Li, M.; Chen, Z. A comprehensive review of battery modeling and state estimation
approaches for advanced battery management systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 131, 110015. [CrossRef]
11. Wang, Z.; Feng, G.; Zhen, D.; Gu, F.; Ball, A. A review on online state of charge and state of health estimation for lithium-ion
batteries in electric vehicles. Energy Rep. 2021, 7, 5141–5161. [CrossRef]
12. ISO 12405-4; Electrically Propelled Road Vehicles—Test Specification for Lithium-Ion Traction Battery Packs and Systems—Part 4:
Performance Testing. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
13. Heinrich, F.; Klapper, P.; Pruckner, M. Energy Informatics 2021. Energy Inform. 2021, 4, 17. [CrossRef]
14. Vanem, E.; Salucci, C.; Bakdi, A.; Alnes, O. Data-driven state of health modelling—A review of state of the art and reflections on
applications for maritime battery systems. J. Energy Storage 2021, 43, 103158. [CrossRef]
15. Widanage, W.D.; Barai, A.; Chouchelamane, G.H.; Uddin, K.; McGordon, A.; Marco, J.; Jennings, P. Design and use of multisine
signals for Li-ion battery equivalent circuit modelling. Part 1: Signal design. J. Power Sources 2016, 324, 70–78. [CrossRef]
16. Waldmann, T.; Wilka, M.; Kasper, M.; Fleischhammer, M.; Wohlfahrt-Mehrens, M. Temperature dependent ageing mechanisms in
lithium-ion batteries–a post-mortem study. J. Power Sources 2014, 262, 129–135. [CrossRef]
17. Bartlett, A.; Marcicki, J.; Onori, S.; Rizzoni, G.; Yang, X.G. Electrochemical model-based state of charge and capacity estimation
for a composite electrode lithium-ion battery. IEEE Control Syst. Mag. 2016, 24, 384–399. [CrossRef]
18. Li, H.; Bin Kaleem, M.; Liu, Z.; Wu, Y.; Liu, W.; Huang, Z. IoB: Internet-of-batteries for electric vehicles—Architectures,
opportunities, and challenges. Green Energy Intell. Transp. 2023, 2, 100128. [CrossRef]
19. Horman, B.; Kortenaar, M.V.; Hurink, J.L.; Smit, G.J.M. A Realistic Model for Battery State of Charge Prediction in Energy
Management Simulation Tool. Energy 2019, 171, 205–217. [CrossRef]
20. Guo, W.; Sun, Z.; Vilsen, S.B.; Meng, J.; Stroe, D.I. Review of “grey box” lifetime modeling for lithium-ion battery: Combining
physics and data-driven methods. J. Energy Storage 2022, 56, 105992. [CrossRef]
21. Westerhoff, U.; Kurbach, K.; Lienesch, F.; Kurrat, M. Analysis of Lithium-Ion Battery Models Based on Electrochemical Impedance
Spectroscopy. Energy Technol. 2016, 4, 1620–1630. [CrossRef]
22. Wu, B.; Widanage, W.D.; Yang, S.; Liu, X. Battery digital twins: Perspectives on the fusion of models, data and artificial intelligence
for smart battery management systems. Energy AI 2020, 1, 100016. [CrossRef]
23. Xiong, R.; Li, L.; Tian, J. Towards a smarter battery management system: A critical review on battery state of health monitoring
methods. J. Power Sources 2018, 405, 18–29. [CrossRef]
24. Ali, S.; Abuhmed, T.; El-Sappagh, S.; Muhammad, K.; Alonso-Moral, J.M.; Confalonieri, R.; Guidotti, R.; Del Ser, J.; Díaz-
Rodríguez, N.; Herrera, F. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): What we know and what is left to attain Trustworthy Artificial
Intelligence. Inf. Fusion 2023, 99, 101805. [CrossRef]
25. Chen, Z.; Sun, M.; Shu, X.; Xiao, R.; Shen, J. Online state of health estimation for lithium-ion batteries based on support vector
machine. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 925. [CrossRef]
26. Xu, X.; Yu, C.; Tang, S.; Sun, X.; Si, X.; Wu, L. State-of-health estimation for lithium-ion batteries based on Wiener process with
modeling the relaxation effect. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 105186–105201. [CrossRef]
27. Jin, G.; Matthews, D.E.; Zhou, Z. A Bayesian framework for online degradation assessment and residual life prediction of
secondary batteries in spacecraft. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2013, 113, 7–20. [CrossRef]
28. Feng, L.; Wang, H.; Si, X.; Zou, H. A state-space-based prognostic model for hidden and age-dependent nonlinear degradation
process. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 2013, 10, 1072–1086. [CrossRef]
29. Tang, S.; Yu, C.; Wang, X.; Guo, X.; Si, X. Remaining useful life prediction of lithium-ion batteries based on the Wiener process
with measurement error. Energies 2014, 7, 520–547. [CrossRef]
30. Si, X.S. An adaptive prognostic approach via nonlinear degradation modeling: Application to battery data. IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron. 2015, 62, 5082–5096. [CrossRef]
31. Chen, X.; Hu, Y.; Li, S.; Wang, Y.; Li, D.; Luo, C.; Xue, X.; Xu, F.; Zhang, Z.; Gong, Z.; et al. State of health (SoH) estimation and
degradation modes analysis of pouch NMC532/graphite Li-ion battery. J. Power Sources 2021, 498, 229884. [CrossRef]
32. Kalman, R.E. A New Approach to Linear Filtering and Prediction Problems. Trans. ASME—J. Basic Eng. 1960, 82, 35–45.
[CrossRef]
33. Kalman, R.E.; Bucy, R.S. New Results in Linear Filtering and Prediction Theory. J. Basic Eng. 1961, 83, 95–108. [CrossRef]
34. Julier, S.J.; Uhlmann, J.K. New extension of the Kalman filter to nonlinear systems. In Proceedings of the Signal Processing,
Sensor Fusion, and Target Recognition VI, Orlando, FL, USA, 21–24 April 1997; Volume 3068, pp. 182–193. [CrossRef]
35. Singer, H. Continuous-Discrete Unscented Kalman Filtering; Fernuniversität: Hagen, Germany, 2006.
36. Thelen, A.; Huan, X.; Paulson, N.; Onori, S.; Hu, Z.; Hu, C. Probabilistic machine learning for battery health diagnostics and
prognostics—Review and perspectives. Npj Mater. Sustain. 2024, 2, 14. [CrossRef]
37. Xiang, Y.; Fan, W.; Zhu, J.; Wei, X.; Dai, H. Semi-supervised deep learning for lithium-ion battery state-of-health estimation using
dynamic discharge profiles. Cell Rep. Phys. Sci. 2024, 5, 101763. [CrossRef]
38. Wang, F.; Zhai, Z.; Zhao, Z.; Di, Y.; Chen, X. Physics-informed neural network for lithium-ion battery degradation stable modeling
and prognosis. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 4332. [CrossRef]
39. Hofmann, T.; Hamar, J.; Mager, B.; Erhard, S.; Schmidt, J.P. Transfer Learning from Synthetic Data for Open-Circuit Voltage
Curve Reconstruction and State of Health Estimation of Lithium-Ion Batteries from Partial Charging Segments. Energy AI 2024,
17, 100382. [CrossRef]
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 36 of 40

40. Kumar, R.R.; Bharatiraja, C.; Udhayakumar, K.; Devakirubakaran, S.; Sekar, K.S.; Mihet-Popa, L. Advances in Batteries, Battery
Modeling, Battery Management System, Battery Thermal Management, SOC, SOH, and Charge/Discharge Characteristics in EV
Applications. IEEE Access 2023, 11, 105761–105809. [CrossRef]
41. Taniuchi, T.; Ohta, M. Fast Charger and Fast Charging Method. U.S. Patent 12059974B2, 13 August 2024.
42. Kuranuki, M.; Hamamoto, K.; Nagase, R. Power Storage Pack, Electric Moving Body, Charging Device. U.S. Patent 12062932B2,
13 August 2024.
43. Kobayashi, H. Cell Supervising Circuit and Battery Management System. U.S. Patent 12062930B2, 13 August 2024.
44. Kasselman, P.R.; O’Mahony, S.; Ryan, R.B.; Furr, S. Battery Fleet Monitoring Systems. U.S. Patent 12061240B2, 13 August 2024.
45. Falls, B.; Kochan, S.; Nechushtan, O.; Adelson, A. Configurable Vehicle Battery Backplane and Modules and Methods of Operating
the Same. U.S. Patent 12062800B2, 13 August 2024.
46. Corley, C.B.; Boynton, T.G.; Ahn, S.H. Modular Charging and Power System. U.S. Patent 12059963B2, 13 August 2024.
47. Doerksen, K.J.; Robertson, B.; Wood, D.J.; De La Rua, J. Self-Stabilizing Skateboard. U.S. Patent 12059608B2, 13 August 2024.
48. Tsuchiya, Y. Vehicle Control Device, Non-Transitory Storage Medium in Management Computer for Power Grid, and Connector
Locking Control Method. U.S. Patent 12059970B2, 13 August 2024.
49. Kun, C.; Song, C.; Guo, G. Parallel Charging. U.S. Patent 12062938B2, 13 August 2024.
50. Gilbert, D.J.; Shteyn, Y.E.; Smith, M.J. Electrical, Mechanical, Computing, and/or Other Devices Formed of Extremely Low
Resistance Materials. U.S. Patent 12063874B2, 13 August 2024.
51. Yao, Q.; Song, X.; Xie, W. State of Health Estimation of Lithium-Ion Battery Based on CNN–WNN–WLSTM. Complex Intell. Syst.
2024, 10, 2919–2936. [CrossRef]
52. Di Rienzo, R.; Nicodemo, N.; Roncella, R.; Saletti, R.; Vennettilli, N.; Asaro, S.; Tola, R.; Baronti, F. Cloud-Based Optimization of a
Battery Model Parameter Identification Algorithm for Battery State-of-Health Estimation in Electric Vehicles. Batteries 2023, 9, 486.
[CrossRef]
53. Lee, J.H.; Lee, I.S. Estimation of Online State of Charge and State of Health Based on Neural Network Model Banks Using Lithium
Batteries. Sensors 2022, 22, 5536. [CrossRef]
54. Rao, K.D.; Anand, N.V.; Pandraju, T.K.S.; Alsaif, F.; Ustun, T.S. Optimally Tuned Gated Recurrent Unit Neural Network-Based
State of Health Estimation Scheme for Lithium-Ion Batteries. IEEE Access 2024, 12, 58597–58607. [CrossRef]
55. Wu, Y.; Xue, Q.; Shen, J.; Lei, Z.; Chen, Z.; Liu, Y. State of Health Estimation for Lithium-Ion Batteries Based on Healthy Features
and Long Short-Term Memory. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 28533–28547. [CrossRef]
56. Wang, H.K.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, M. A Conditional Random Field Based Feature Learning Framework for Battery Capacity
Prediction. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 13221. [CrossRef]
57. Brocke, J.v.; Simons, A.; Niehaves, B.; Riemer, K.; Plattfaut, R.; Cleven, A. Reconstructing the Giant: On the Importance of Rigour
in Documenting the Literature Search Process. In Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS
2009), Verona, Italy, 8–10 June 2009.
58. Paré, G.; Kitsiou, S. Methods for Literature Reviews. In Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-Based Approach; Lau, F.,
Kuziemsky, C., Eds.; University of Victoria: Victoria, BC, Canada, 2017; Chapter 9.
59. Kitchenham, B.; Charters, S. Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews; Joint Technical Report, NICTA 0400011T.1; Technical
Report TR/SE-0401; Keele University: Keele, UK, 2004.
60. O’Kane, S.; Ai, W.; Madabattula, G.; Alonso-Albarez, D.; Timms, R.; Sulzer, V.; Edge, J.; Wu, B.; Offer, G.; Marinescu, M.
Lithium-ion battery degradation: How to model it. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2022, 24, 7909–7922. [CrossRef]
61. Korthauer, R. Lithium-Ion Batteries: Basics and Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; p. 413.
62. Henschel, J.; Peschel, C.; Klein, S.; Horsthemke, F.; Winter, M.; Nowak, S. Clarification of Decomposition Pathways in a State-of-
the-Art Lithium Ion Battery Electrolyte through 13 C-Labeling of Electrolyte Components. Angew. Chem. (Int. Ed. Engl.) 2020,
59, 6128–6137. [CrossRef]
63. Spitthoff, L.; Shearing, P.R.; Burheim, O.S. Temperature, Ageing and Thermal Management of Lithium-Ion Batteries. Energies
2021, 14, 1248. [CrossRef]
64. Chen, S.; Wei, X.; Zhang, G.; Wang, X.; Zhu, J.; Feng, X.; Dai, H.; Ouyang, M. All-temperature area battery application mechanism,
performance, and strategies. Innovation 2023, 4, 100465. [CrossRef]
65. Huria, T.; Ceraolo, M.; Gazzarri, J.; Jackey, R. High Fidelity Electrical Model with Thermal Dependence for Characterization
and Simulation of High Power Lithium Battery Cells. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International Electric Vehicle Conference,
Greenville, SC, USA, 4–8 March 2012.
66. Huang, D.; Wang, Y.; Zhao, J.; Wang, X.; Zhu, Z.; Wang, T.; Zhou, Y.; Jin, P.; Li, C. Hybrid Estimation Algorithm for Lithium-ion
Battery based on PI Observer. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2020, 53, 13–18. [CrossRef]
67. Choi, W.; Shin, H.C.; Kim, J.M.; Choi, J.Y.; Yoon, W.S. Modeling and applications of electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS)
for lithium-ion batteries. J. Electrochem. Sci. Technol. 2020, 11, 1–13. [CrossRef]
68. Spagnol, P.; Rossi, S.; Savaresi, S.M. Kalman Filter SoC estimation for Li-Ion batteries. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE
International Conference on Control Applications (CCA), Denver, CO, USA, 28–30 September 2011; pp. 587–592. [CrossRef]
69. Cui, Z.; Hu, W.; Zhang, G.; Zhang, Z.; Chen, Z. An extended Kalman filter based SOC estimation method for Li-ion battery.
Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 81–87. [CrossRef]
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 37 of 40

70. He, H.; Zhang, X.; Xiong, R.; Xu, Y.; Guo, H. Online model-based estimation of state-of-charge and open-circuit voltage of
lithium-ion batteries in electric vehicles. Energy 2012, 39, 310–318. [CrossRef]
71. Cheng, Z.; Lv, J.; Liu, Y.; Yan, Z. Estimation of state of charge for lithium-ion battery based on finite difference extended Kalman
filter. J. Appl. Math. 2014, 2014, 348537. [CrossRef]
72. Piller, M.P.; Perrin, M.; Jossen, A. Methods for state-of-charge determination and their applications. J. Power Sources 2001,
96, 113–120. [CrossRef]
73. Wan, E.A.; van der Merwe, R. The unscented Kalman filter for nonlinear estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE 2000 Adaptive
Systems for Signal Processing, Communications, and Control Symposium, Lake Louise, AB, Canada, 4 October 2000; pp. 153–158.
[CrossRef]
74. Plett, G. LiPB dynamic cell models for Kalman-filter SOC estimation. In Proceedings of the 19th International Battery, Hybrid
and Fuel Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition, Busan, Republic of Korea, 19–23 October 2002; pp. 1–12.
75. Chang, L.; Hu, B.; Chang, G.; Li, A. Huber-based novel robust unscented Kalman filter. IET Sci. Meas. Technol. 2012, 6, 502–509.
[CrossRef]
76. Peng, J.L.; He, H.; Lu, B. An improved state of charge estimation method based on cubature Kalman filter for lithium-ion batteries.
Appl. Energy 2019, 253, 113520. [CrossRef]
77. Arasaratnam, I.; Haykin, S. Cubature Kalman filters. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 2009, 54, 1254–1269. [CrossRef]
78. Ding, Z.; Balaji, B. Comparison of the unscented and cubature Kalman filters for radar tracking applications. In Proceedings of
the IET International Conference on Radar Systems (Radar 2012), Glasgow, UK, 22–25 October 2012; pp. 1–5.
79. Li, K.; Chang, L.; Hu, B. A variational Bayesian-based unscented Kalman filter with both adaptivity and robustness. IEEE Sens. J.
2016, 16, 6966–6976. [CrossRef]
80. Abrahamsen, P. A Review of Gaussian Random Fields and Correlation Functions; Technical Report 917; Norwegian Computing Center:
Oslo, Norway, 1992.
81. Brooks, A.; Makarenko, A.; Upcroft, B. Gaussian process models for sensor-centric robot localisation. In Proceedings of the 2006
IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Orlando, FL, USA, 15–19 May 2006.
82. Quadrianto, N.; Kersting, K.; Xu, Z. Gaussian Process. In Encyclopedia of Machine Learning; Sammut, C., Webb, G.I., Eds.; Springer:
Boston, MA, USA, 2010; pp. 428–439. [CrossRef]
83. Li, W.; Jia, Y. Distributed consensus filtering for discrete-time nonlinear systems with non-Gaussian noise. Signal Process. 2012,
92, 2464–2470. [CrossRef]
84. Singh, R.; Pal, B.C.; Jabr, R.A. Statistical representation of distribution system loads using Gaussian mixture model. IEEE Trans.
Power Syst. 2009, 25, 29–37. [CrossRef]
85. Rezaei, O.; Habibifar, R.; Wang, Z. A Robust Kalman Filter-Based Approach for SoC Estimation of Lithium-Ion Batteries in Smart
Homes. Energies 2022, 15, 3768. [CrossRef]
86. Hassan, M.F.; Salut, G.; Singh, M.G.; Titli, A. A Decentralized Computational Algorithm for the Global Kalman Filter. IEEE Trans.
Autom. Control 1978, 23, 262–268. [CrossRef]
87. Fu, Y.; Sun, M.; Gao, Y. Tightly coupled distributed Kalman filter under non-Gaussian noises. Signal Process. 2022, 108678.
[CrossRef]
88. Rao, B.; Durrant-Whyte, H.; Sheen, J. A Fully Decentralized Multi-Sensor System For Tracking and Surveillance. Int. J. Robot. Res.
1993, 12, 20–44. [CrossRef]
89. Rao, B.S.; Durrant-Whyte, H.F. Fully Decentralized Algorithm for Multisensor Kalman Filtering. IEE Proc. D Control Theory Appl.
1991, 138, 413–420. [CrossRef]
90. Olfati-Saber, R. Distributed Kalman Filtering and Sensor Fusion in Sensor Networks. In Networked Embedded Sensing and Control;
Antsaklis, P.J., Tabuada, P., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Gemany, 2006; Volume 331, pp. 157–167.
91. Xie, L.; Soh, Y.C.; Souza, C.E.D. Robust Kalman filtering for uncertain discrete-time systems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 1994,
39, 1310–1314. [CrossRef]
92. Zhang, Z.; Jiang, L.; Zhang, L.; Huang, C. State-of-charge estimation of lithium-ion battery pack by using an adaptive extended
Kalman filter for electric vehicles. J. Energy Storage 2021, 37, 102457. [CrossRef]
93. El Din, M.S.; Hussein, A.A.; Abdel-Hafez, M.F. Improved battery SOC estimation accuracy using a modified UKF with an
adaptive cell model under real EV operating conditions. IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrif. 2018, 4, 408–417. [CrossRef]
94. Reynolds, D. Gaussian Mixture Models. In Encyclopedia of Biometrics; Li, S.Z., Jain, A., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2009;
pp. 659–663. [CrossRef]
95. Khodarahmi, M.; Maihami, V. A Review on Kalman Filter Models. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 2022, 30, 727–747. [CrossRef]
96. Blom, H.A.; Bar-Shalom, Y. The interacting multiple model algorithm for systems with Markovian switching coefficients. IEEE
Trans. Autom. Control 1988, 33, 780–783. [CrossRef]
97. Hanlon, P.D.; Maybeck, P.S. Multiple-model adaptive estimation using a residual correlation Kalman filter bank. IEEE Trans.
Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 2000, 36, 393–406. [CrossRef]
98. Wan, M.; Li, P.; Li, T. Tracking maneuvering target with angle-only measurements using IMM algorithm based on CKF. J. Syst.
Eng. Electron. 2010, 21, 403–409. [CrossRef]
99. Gao, B.; Gao, S.; Zhong, Y.; Hu, G.; Gu, C. Interacting multiple model estimation-based adaptive robust unscented Kalman filter.
Int. J. Control Autom. Syst. 2017, 15, 2013–2025. [CrossRef]
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 38 of 40

100. Kottath, R.; Poddar, S.; Das, A.; Kumar, V. Window based Multiple Model Adaptive Estimation for Navigational Framework.
Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 88–95. [CrossRef]
101. Obuli Pranav, D.; Preethem S., B.; Indragandhi, V.; Ashok, B.; Vedhanayaki, S.; Kavitha, C. Enhanced SOC estimation of lithium
ion batteries with RealTime data using machine learning algorithms. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 16036. [CrossRef]
102. Dini, P.; Colicelli, A.; Saponara, S. Review on Modeling and SOC/SOH Estimation of Batteries for Automotive Applications.
Batteries 2024, 10, 34. [CrossRef]
103. Baccouche, I.; Mlayah, A.; Jemmali, S.; Manai, B.; Essoukri Ben Amara, N. Implementation of a Coulomb counting algorithm for
SOC estimation of Li-Ion battery for multimedia applications. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 12th International Multi-Conference
on Systems, Signals & Devices (SSD15), Mahdia, Tunisia, 16–19 March 2015; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
104. Li, Y.; Guo, H.; Qi, F.; Guo, Z.; Li, M. Comparative Study of the Influence of Open Circuit Voltage Tests on State of Charge Online
Estimation for Lithium-Ion Batteries. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 17535–17547. [CrossRef]
105. Xiong, R.; He, H.; Sun, F.; Zhao, K. Evaluation on State of Charge Estimation of Batteries with Adaptive Extended Kalman Filter
by Experiment Approach. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2013, 62, 108–117. [CrossRef]
106. Kim, I.S. The novel state of charge estimation method for lithium battery using sliding mode observer. J. Power Sources 2006, 163,
584–590. [CrossRef]
107. Vishnu, C.; Saleem, A. Adaptive Integral Correction-Based State of Charge Estimation Strategy for Lithium-Ion Cells. IEEE Access
2022, 10, 69499–69510. [CrossRef]
108. Hafez, I.; Wadi, A.; Abdel-Hafez, M.F.; Hussein, A.A. Variational Bayesian-Based Maximum Correntropy Cubature Kalman Filter
Method for State-of-Charge Estimation of Li-Ion Battery Cells. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2023, 72, 3090–3104. [CrossRef]
109. Ndiaye, A.; German, R.; Bouscayrol, A.; Gaetani-Liseo, M.; Venet, P.; Castex, E. Impact of the User Charging Practice on the
Battery Aging in an Electric Vehicle. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2024, 73, 4578–4588. [CrossRef]
110. Boulon, L.; Pera, M.C.; Hissel, D.; Bouscayrol, A.; Delarue, P. Energetic Macroscopic Representation of a Fuel Cell-Supercapacitor
System. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference, Arlington, TX, USA, 9–12 September 2007;
pp. 290–297. [CrossRef]
111. Kremzow-Tennie, S.; Scholz, T.; Pautzke, F.; Popp, A.; Fechtner, H.; Schmuelling, B. A Comprehensive Overview of the Impacting
Factors on a Lithium-Ion-Battery’s Overall Efficiency. Power Electron. Drives 2022, 7, 9–28. [CrossRef]
112. Kumar, A.; Roy, N.K. Study and modeling of internal resistance of Li-Ion battery with change in temperature & SoC. In
Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Smart and Sustainable Technologies in Energy and Power Sectors (SSTEPS),
Mahendragarh, India, 7–11 November 2022; pp. 43–46. [CrossRef]
113. Kim, D.; Lee, J.; Shin, K.; Kim, K.B.; Chung, K.Y. Empirical Capacity Degradation Model for a Lithium-Ion Battery Based on
Various C-Rate Charging Conditions. J. Electrochem. Sci. Technol. 2024, 15, 414–420. [CrossRef]
114. Sőrés, M.A.; Hartmann, B. Analysis of the Relation between State of Health and Self-Discharge of Li-Ion Batteries. Acta Polytech.
Hung. 2021, 18, 225–244. [CrossRef]
115. Łebkowski, A. Temperature, Overcharge and Short-Circuit Studies of Batteries used in Electric Vehicles. Prz. Elektrotechniczny
2017, 1, 69–75. [CrossRef]
116. Alvarez-Monteserin, I.; Sanz-Bobi, M.A. An Online Fade Capacity Estimation of Lithium-Ion Battery Using a New Health
Indicator Based Only on a Short Period of the Charging Voltage Profile. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 11138–11146. [CrossRef]
117. Chu, W.; Ghahramani, Z. Gaussian processes for ordinal regression. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2005, 6, 1019–1041.
118. Zou, Y.; Hu, X.; Ma, H.; Li, S. Combined State of Charge and State of Health estimation over lithium-ion battery cell cycle lifespan
for electric vehicles. J. Power Sources 2015, 273, 793–803. [CrossRef]
119. Zhang, C.; Zhang, Y.; Li, Y. A Novel Battery State-of-Health Estimation Method for Hybrid Electric Vehicles. IEEE/ASME Trans.
Mechatron. 2015, 20, 2604–2612. [CrossRef]
120. Wu, X.; Chen, J.; Tang, H.; Xu, K.; Shao, M.; Long, Y. Robust Online Estimation of State of Health for Lithium-Ion Batteries Based
on Capacities under Dynamical Operation Conditions. Batteries 2024, 10, 219. [CrossRef]
121. Xiang, M.; He, Y.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, C.; Wang, L.; Wang, C.; Sui, C. State-of-Health Prognosis for Lithium-Ion Batteries
Considering the Limitations in Measurements via Maximal Information Entropy and Collective Sparse Variational Gaussian
Process. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 188199–188217. [CrossRef]
122. Xu, N.; Xie, Y.; Liu, Q.; Yue, F.; Zhao, D. A Data-Driven Approach to State of Health Estimation and Prediction for a Lithium-Ion
Battery Pack of Electric Buses Based on Real-World Data. Sensors 2022, 22, 5762. [CrossRef]
123. Wang, J.; Zhang, C.; Meng, X.; Zhang, L.; Li, X.; Zhang, W. A Novel Feature Engineering-Based SOH Estimation Method for
Lithium-Ion Battery with Downgraded Laboratory Data. Batteries 2024, 10, 139. [CrossRef]
124. Tiane, A.; Okar, C.; Alzayed, M.; Chaoui, H. Comparing Hybrid Approaches of Deep Learning for Remaining Useful Life
Prognostic of Lithium-Ion Batteries. IEEE Access 2024, 12, 70334. [CrossRef]
125. Hell, S.M.; Kim, C.D. Development of a Data-Driven Method for Online Battery Remaining-Useful-Life Prediction. Batteries 2022,
8, 192. [CrossRef]
126. Elman, J. Finding Structure in Time. Cogn. Sci. 1990, 14, 179–211. [CrossRef]
127. Boser, B.E.; Guyon, I.M.; Vapnik, V.N. A Training Algorithm for Optimal Margin Classifiers. In Proceedings of the COLT ’92:
Proceedings of the Fifth Annual ACM Workshop on Computational Learning Theory, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 27–29 July 1992;
pp. 144–152. [CrossRef]
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 39 of 40

128. Wang, X.; Ni, N.; Hu, M.; Dai, K. A MDA-LSTM Network for Remaining Useful Life Estimation of Lithium Batteries. Signal
Image Video Process. 2024, 18, S129–S140. [CrossRef]
129. Yayan, U.; Arslan, A.T.; Yucel, H. A Novel Method for SOH Prediction of Batteries Based on Stacked LSTM with Quick Charge
Data. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2021, 35, 421–439. [CrossRef]
130. Nagarale, S.; Patil, B. Artificial Intelligence-Based Field-Programmable Gate Array Accelerator for Electric Vehicles Battery
Management System. SAE Int. J. CAV 2024, 7, 261–276. [CrossRef]
131. Liu, H.; Deng, Z.; Che, Y.; Xu, L.; Wang, B.; Wang, Z.; Xie, Y.; Hu, X. Big Field Data-Driven Battery Pack Health Estimation for
Electric Vehicles: A Deep-Fusion Transfer Learning Approach. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2024, 218, 111585. [CrossRef]
132. Wang, Z.; Yuan, C.; Li, X. Lithium Battery State-of-Health Estimation via Differential Thermal Voltammetry with Gaussian
Process Regression. IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrif. 2021, 7, 16–25. [CrossRef]
133. Ping, F.; Miao, X.; Yu, H.; Xun, Z. An Improved LSTNet Approach for State-of-Health Estimation of Automotive Lithium-Ion
Battery. Electronics 2023, 12, 2647. [CrossRef]
134. Chen, Y. NASA Lithium Ion Battery Dataset, 2024. IEEE Dataport 2024. [CrossRef]
135. Ma, Y.; Wang, Z.; Gao, J.; Chen, H. A novel method for remaining useful life of solid-state lithium-ion battery based on improved
CNN and health indicators derivation. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2024, 220, 111646. [CrossRef]
136. Lin, M.; Ke, L.; Wang, W.; Meng, J.; Guan, Y.; Wu, J. Health prognosis via feature optimization and convolutional neural network
for lithium-ion batteries. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2024, 133, 108666. [CrossRef]
137. Birkl, C. Oxford Battery Degradation Dataset 1. 2017. Available online: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:03ba4b01-cfed-46d3-9
b1a-7d4a7bdf6fac (accessed on 5 July 2024).
138. Mazzi, Y.; Ben Sassi, H.; Errahimi, F. Lithium-ion battery state of health estimation using a hybrid model based on a convolutional
neural network and bidirectional gated recurrent unit. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2024, 127, 107199. [CrossRef]
139. Zhi, Y.; Wang, H.; Wang, L. A State of Health Estimation Method for Electric Vehicle Li-ion Batteries Using GA-PSO-SVR. Complex
Intell. Syst. 2022, 8, 2167–2182. [CrossRef]
140. Drucker, H.; Burges, C.J.C.; Kaufman, L.; Smola, A.; Vapnik, V. Support Vector Regression Machines. In Proceedings of the
NIPS’96: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Denver, CO, USA, 3–5
December 1996; pp. 155–161.
141. Holland, J.H. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems; University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1975.
142. Kennedy, J.; Eberhart, R. Particle swarm optimization. In Proceedings of the ICNN’95—International Conference on Neural
Networks, Perth, WA, Australia, 27 November–1 December 1995; Volume 4, pp. 1942–1948. [CrossRef]
143. Waseem, M.; Huang, J.; Wong, C.N.; Lee, C.K.M. Data-Driven GWO-BRNN-Based SOH Estimation of Lithium-Ion Batteries in
EVs for Their Prognostics and Health Management. Mathematics 2023, 11, 4263. [CrossRef]
144. Mirjalili, S.; Mirjalili, S.M.; Lewis, A. Grey Wolf Optimizer. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2014, 69, 46–61. [CrossRef]
145. Burden, F.; Winkler, D. Bayesian Regularization of Neural Networks. In Artificial Neural Networks: Methods and Applications;
Livingstone, D.J., Ed.; Humana Press: Totowa, NJ, USA, 2009; pp. 23–42. [CrossRef]
146. Hu, J.; Weng, L.; Gao, Z.; Yang, B. State of Health Estimation and Remaining Useful Life Prediction of Electric Vehicles Based on
Real-World Driving and Charging Data. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2023, 72, 382–394. [CrossRef]
147. Lee, K.B. D-NSGA-II: Dual-Stage Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm-II. In Robot Intelligence Technology and Applications 3;
Kim, J.H., Yang, W., Jo, J., Sincak, P., Myung, H., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switerland, 2015; pp. 291–297.
148. Li, N.; He, F.; Ma, W.; Wang, R.; Jiang, L.; Zhang, X. An Indirect State-of-Health Estimation Method Based on Improved Genetic
and Back Propagation for Online Lithium-Ion Battery Used in Electric Vehicles. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2022, 71, 12682–12690.
[CrossRef]
149. Michelini, E.; Höschele, P.; Abbas, S.M.; Ellersdorfer, C.; Moser, J. Assessment of Health Indicators to Detect the Aging State of
Commercial Second-Life Lithium-Ion Battery Cells through Basic Electrochemical Cycling. Batteries 2023, 9, 542. [CrossRef]
150. Quinard, H.; Redondo-Iglesias, E.; Pelissier, S.; Venet, P. Fast electrical characterizations of high-energy second life lithium-ion
batteries for embedded and stationary applications. Batteries 2019, 5, 33. [CrossRef]
151. Jiang, N.; Pang, H. Study on Co-Estimation of SOC and SOH for Second-Use Lithium-Ion Power Batteries. Electronics 2022,
11, 1789. [CrossRef]
152. Bockrath, S.; Waldhör, S.; Ludwig, H.; Lorentz, V. State of health estimation using a temporal convolutional network for an
efficient use of retired electric vehicle batteries within second-life applications. In Artificial Intelligence for Digitising Industry:
Applications; Fraunhofer Institute for Integrated Systems and Device Technology IISB: Erlangen, Germany, 2021; pp. 21–34.
153. Sun, J.; Lei, P.; Liu, R.; Ma, Q.; Tang, C.; Wang, T. Economic Operation Optimization for 2nd Use Batteries in Battery Energy
Storage Systems. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 41852–41859.
154. John, J.; Kudva, G.; Jayalakshmi, N.S. Secondary Life of Electric Vehicle Batteries: Degradation, State of Health Estimation Using
Incremental Capacity Analysis, Applications and Challenges. IEEE Access 2024, 12, 63735–63753. [CrossRef]
155. UL 1974; ANSI/CAN/UL Standard for Evaluation for Repurposing Batteries. Underwriters Laboratories (UL): Northbrook, IL,
USA, 2018; Edition 1, Published Date: October 25, 2018, ANSI Approved: October 25, 2018, SCC Approved: October 25, 2018.
156. IEC 62933-5-3; Electrical Energy Storage (EES) Systems—Part 5-3: Safety Requirements for Grid-Integrated EES Systems—
Performing Unplanned Modification of Electrochemical Based Systems. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC):
Geneva, Switzerland, 2023.
Batteries 2024, 10, 356 40 of 40

157. Börner, M.F.; Frieges, M.H.; Späth, B.; Spütz, K.; Heimes, H.H.; Sauer, D.U.; Li, W. Challenges of second-life concepts for retired
electric vehicle batteries. Cell Rep. Phys. Sci. 2022, 3, 101095. [CrossRef]
158. Salek, F.; Resalati, S.; Babaie, M.; Henshall, P.; Morrey, D.; Yao, L. A Review of the Technical Challenges and Solutions in
Maximising the Potential Use of Second Life Batteries from Electric Vehicles. Batteries 2024, 10, 79. [CrossRef]
159. Wang, Y.; Huang, H.; Wang, H.; Wu, X. A fast estimation method for state-of-health of retired batteries based on health features.
J. Energy Storage 2023, 72, 108677. [CrossRef]
160. Zhou, D.; Fu, P.; Yin, H.; Xie, W.; Feng, S. A Study of Online State-of-Health Estimation Method for In-Use Electric Vehicles Based
on Charge Data. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. 2019, 102, 1302–1309. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.