Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 40 references

Augmented Physics-Based Li-ion Battery Model via Adaptive Ensemble Sparse Learning and Conformal Prediction

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A hybrid physics-and-sparse-learning model cuts Li-ion voltage prediction error by up to 46% on unseen drive cycles, with conformal intervals that stay valid.

desk verdict A competent hybrid-modelling paper whose headline 46% MSE reduction is likely inflated by an autoregressive term that uses the true previous voltage error; the authors need a persistence baseline. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00353 v1 pith:5BEVLPX3 submitted 2025-07-01 eess.SY cs.LGcs.SY

Samuel Filgueira da Silva , Mehmet Fatih Ozkan , Faissal El Idrissi , Marcello Canova This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.LGcs.SY
keywords lithium-ionbatteryhybridmodelingsparseidentificationensemblelearningconformalpredictionvoltagereduced-ordermodeluncertaintyquantification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a reduced-order electrochemical model of a lithium-ion cell can be brought much closer to experimental voltage data by adding a sparse, data-driven correction that is learned once and then runs alongside the physics. The correction is not a static offset: it models the time evolution of the voltage error as a function of the previous error, current, and estimated internal concentrations. On driving cycles the model never trained on, the hybrid predictor cuts mean squared voltage error by up to 46 percent relative to the physics model alone. The same framework supplies prediction intervals with stated coverage guarantees, reaching 96.85 percent empirical coverage in the bagged version.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the adaptive ensemble sparse identification (AESI) correction, defined by the discrete error model $\hat{e}[k+1] = \Theta(e[k], I[k], c_{s,p}[k], c_{s,n}[k], c_{e,0}[k], c_{e,L}[k])\,\xi$, where $\Theta$ is a library of Chebyshev polynomials of the state and inputs plus trigonometric and hyperbolic terms, and $\xi$ is a sparse coefficient vector. An evolutionary algorithm selects a subset of the library and tunes the regularization and sparsification parameters; moving-block bootstrap resampling creates 100 training sets, and the top 10 percent of models by out-of-bag error are aggregated either by averaging coefficients (bagging) or by refitting on terms whose inclusion probability exceeds a threshold (stability selection). Uncertainty is handled by sequential predictive conformal inference (SPCI), which feeds the most recent 200 residuals into a quantile regression forest to produce adaptive prediction intervals.

What would settle it

Compute, on the held-out cycles, the projection residual of the true error $e[k+1]$ onto the selected library terms: if the best possible sparse linear fit from Eq. 8 leaves a large residual compared with the reported $45.96\%$ MSE reduction, then the improvement is not a true learned dynamics but an artifact of the training set. Alternatively, run the trained AESI correction on a long, sustained high-C-rate pulse profile or a different cell chemistry: if the empirical coverage of the SPCI intervals falls well below the nominal $90\%$ level, the reliability claim fails outside the tested distribution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the residual voltage error of the Extended Single Particle Model obeys a low-dimensional sparse dynamics that can be identified from data and used for one-step-ahead correction. Specifically, the paper asserts that the error at time $k+1$ is well approximated by a sparse linear combination of Chebyshev and trigonometric basis functions of the current error, the current, and the electrolyte and solid-phase concentrations at time $k$, with coefficients found by thresholded ridge regression on bootstrap resamples. Two ensemble strategies are compared: bagging, which averages coefficients across selected sparse models, and stability selection, which refits on the terms most often selected. The paper reports that the bagged hybrid model achieves $45.96\%$ mean squared error reduction on the held-out SC03, JC, and NEDC cycles, and that the conformal intervals built on these corrections cover the true voltage error $96.85\%$ of the time at a nominal $90\%$ level.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the voltage error at the next time step can be expressed as a sparse linear combination of the chosen Chebyshev and trigonometric functions of the current error, current, and internal concentrations, and that this expression learned on the training cycles still holds on the held-out SC03, JC, and NEDC cycles.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The hybrid voltage predictor can be deployed in battery management systems at a small computational overhead over the ESPM, since the correction is a fixed linear combination of precomputed basis functions.
  • Bagging generalizes better than stability selection on unseen cycles, suggesting that variance reduction matters more than sparsity when the training data are limited and temporally dependent.
  • Conformal intervals from SPCI give a practical certificate of reliability for voltage prediction, not just a point estimate.
  • The learned terms can be ranked by singular value decomposition to point at which physical variables drive the model error, such as current and electrolyte boundary concentrations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same AESI recipe is applied to other reduced-order models, the library must be re-derived for the new error dynamics; Chebyshev-and-trigonometric dictionaries are not universal.
  • The coverage guarantees hold for the tested drive-cycle distribution; a stress test with a long sustained high-C-rate pulse or a different cell chemistry would reveal whether the learned error model transfers beyond the training envelope.
  • The discovered sparse terms are plausible correlates of current and transport effects, but the paper's own caveat applies: the error correction is not uniquely identifiable, so the terms should not be read as a causal mechanism.
  • Extending the library with aging features could let the same framework track state-of-health, as the authors suggest for future work; one testable version is to re-estimate $\xi$ periodically as capacity fades.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an Adaptive Ensemble Sparse Identification (AESI) framework that augments an Extended Single Particle Model (ESPM) of a lithium-ion cell with a data-driven correction for voltage error dynamics. The correction is learned from moving-block-bootstrap ensembles of sparse regressors, with either bagging or stability selection, and the framework further wraps the point predictions in Sequential Predictive Conformal Inference (SPCI) intervals. The authors report mean squared error reductions up to 45.96% on unseen driving cycles (SC03, JC, NEDC) relative to the ESPM baseline, and empirical conformal coverage of 96.85% and 97.41% for the two ensemble variants. The evaluation uses a 10 Hz experimental dataset from a 30 Ah NMC cell and includes a Welch ANOVA on squared residuals.

Significance. If the accuracy claim is established, the paper is a useful step toward low-cost, interpretable correction of physics-based battery models with rigorous uncertainty quantification. The combination of ensemble sparse identification with conformal prediction is sensible, and the use of genuinely held-out driving cycles rather than a random split is a strength. The work also compares against a tuned SINDy-C baseline and gives a clear algorithmic description. However, the central evaluation currently conflates the value of the learned sparse dynamics with the trivial information contained in the current measured voltage error, and the uncertainty quantification is reported only for one-step-ahead, oracle-informed prediction. These issues must be resolved before the headline claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [III, Eq. (8) and V, Table I] The hybrid predictor in Eq. (7) uses e[k] = Vexp[k] - VESPM[k] as a regressor, so at every test step the model has access to the measured voltage from the previous sample, whereas the ESPM baseline does not. The discovered library contains T1(e[k]) (Fig. 9, rank 8), and voltage errors on a 10 Hz grid are smooth, so a large part of the reported 45.96% MSER may come from simply carrying the last error forward rather than from the learned sparse error dynamics. The paper does not compare against a persistence baseline (e_hat[k+1] = e[k]) or a linear autoregressive baseline, nor does it evaluate a closed-loop mode in which predicted errors are fed back recursively. Please add these baselines and report MSER for recursive prediction to substantiate the generalization claim in the abstract.
  2. [IV, Algorithm 1 and Table II] The SPCI intervals are updated online with the true residual at each test step (Algorithm 1, lines 5-6), so the reported coverage of 96.85% is a one-step-ahead coverage for a predictor that is corrected by the current measurement, not coverage for the hybrid model used as a standalone forward simulator. This limitation should be stated explicitly. If the intended deployment is recursive or multi-step prediction, the paper should provide coverage and interval-width results for that mode, since the current numbers do not quantify uncertainty for the simulated trajectory.
  3. [V, Table I and Fig. 8] The central MSER figures are point estimates over one concatenated test set without confidence intervals, and the Welch ANOVA in Fig. 8 reports a small effect size (omega-squared = 0.04). Because the test set is a concatenation of three different cycles (SC03, JC, NEDC), the authors should report per-cycle MSER values and bootstrap or other uncertainty intervals for the 45.96% figure, to show that the improvement is not driven by a particular segment and to give the reader a sense of the precision of the headline number.
minor comments (6)
  1. [II, Eq. (6)] The terminal voltage equation uses Rc, but the surrounding text refers to R0; please use consistent notation for the ohmic resistance.
  2. [III, Eq. (15)] The expression for the expected number of unique points per MBB sample is stated without derivation and appears to ignore the block structure of the resampling; please clarify the approximation or provide a citation that supports it.
  3. [V, Fig. 8] The reported confidence interval for omega-squared is shown as [0.04, 1.00], which is not plausible for an effect size of 0.04; this is likely a computational or reporting error and should be corrected.
  4. [V.A.1] The SVD-based feature importance in Eqs. (34)-(38) is not standard and the coefficients u_i,k are not identified if U is rank-deficient; please provide a reference or a numerical validation of the importance scores.
  5. [IV, Eq. (31)] The notation with \hat Q_t(\hat \beta) and \hat Q_t(1 - \alpha + \hat \beta) is confusing; please state explicitly which quantile levels are used and how \hat \beta is calibrated.
  6. [III.C] The phrase '5C charging pulse' should define the C-rate convention and clarify why 5C was chosen, as this is an unusually high charge rate for a 30 Ah cell.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the headline MSER is measured on held-out test cycles; self-citations are baselines, not proof.

full rationale

The central claim, 'mean squared error reductions of up to 46% on unseen data' (abstract; Table I: AESI I 45.96%), is evaluated with Eq. 33 on held-out SC03/JC/NEDC cycles, so it is externally grounded rather than derived from the model's own fitted values. The learned correction fAESI in Eq. 7 is trained by STRidge and ensemble selection on voltage-error data; this is standard supervised learning, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The autoregressive input e[k] in Eq. 8 means the hybrid model uses the measured voltage at the previous sample when forming a one-step-ahead correction; this is not equivalent to predicting e[k+1] from e[k] by construction, because e[k+1] is not e[k] and the test trajectories are held out. However, the absence of a persistence or closed-loop baseline is a genuine benchmarking weakness: much of the 45.96% MSER could in principle reflect the strong autocorrelation of smooth 10 Hz voltage errors rather than learned error dynamics. That is a generalization caveat, not circularity. The self-citations [5], [22], [28] provide the ESPM base model and the SINDy-C comparison baseline; neither is used to prove the improvement, which is judged against independent experimental voltage data. The conformal intervals in Table II are built online from past residuals (Algorithm 1) and evaluated on test residuals, so the reported 96.85% and 97.41% coverage are empirical properties of held-out data, not artifacts of the construction. The paper itself concedes that 'voltage error correction is not uniquely defined' (Section V-A.2), which limits interpretability but does not make the derivation circular. No load-bearing step reduces Eq. 7 to Eq. 8 or to any self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; AESI is a data-driven correction term, not a postulated mechanism. The central claim rests on fitted sparse coefficients, GA-selected hyperparameters, and several domain assumptions about the ESPM baseline, the library ansatz, and the SPCI conditions.

free parameters (6)
  • Sparse coefficient vector xi for error dynamics = Not reported; 56 active basis functions for AESI I
    Fitted by STRidge on moving-block bootstrap samples of training voltage error data (Eqs. 13-14, 18, 21). The central accuracy claim depends on these fitted values.
  • Regularization hyperparameters lambda1 and lambda2 = lambda1 = 3.57e-12, lambda2 = 1.743
    Selected by the evolutionary algorithm on validation data (Eq. 29); they control sparsity and coefficient shrinkage.
  • Polynomial degree limits pc and d = pc = 1, d = 2
    Selected by the evolutionary algorithm; they determine the library size and model complexity.
  • Stability selection threshold tau = 0.41
    Selected by the evolutionary algorithm for AESI II; it controls which basis functions are retained (Eq. 20).
  • Moving Block Bootstrap block size B = B = 500 for n = 88,200
    Chosen by the authors; it controls how temporal dependence is preserved in the bootstrap samples (Section III-A).
  • SPCI significance level alpha and sliding window w = alpha = 0.1, w = 200
    Chosen by the authors for the conformal prediction intervals (Section IV, Algorithm 1).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption ESPM equations and Galerkin projection as given in [5],[28] adequately represent the nominal battery dynamics.
    The hybrid model uses ESPM voltage and internal states as inputs. If the ESPM is miscalibrated, the learned error correction may absorb calibration error rather than true unmodeled dynamics.
  • ad hoc to paper The voltage error e[k+1] is a function of the chosen features at time k and can be represented by a sparse linear combination of Chebyshev and trigonometric basis functions (Eq. 8).
    No physical derivation is given for this ansatz; it is the core modeling assumption behind the AESI correction.
  • standard math Moving Block Bootstrap resampling preserves short-term temporal dependencies, and the expected coverage approximation in Eq. 15 applies.
    This is a standard result from resampling theory, used to justify the bootstrap design in Section III-A.
  • domain assumption STRidge converges to useful sparse solutions for this library matrix.
    The method from [32] is applied without proof that it recovers the correct support for this particular feature set.
  • domain assumption SPCI asymptotic conditional coverage (Eq. 32) applies to this residual sequence, including the QRF quantile estimator.
    The paper invokes theory from [38] but does not test the regularity conditions on the battery residuals.
  • domain assumption Experimental data from the 30 Ah NMC cell are accurate, and the test cycles are representative of unseen operation.
    No measurement error analysis is provided, and generalization claims rely on the representativeness of the selected cycles.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Augmented Physics-Based Li-ion Battery Model via Adaptive Ensemble Sparse Learning and Conformal Prediction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5BEVLPX3

@misc{pith2026250700353,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Augmented Physics-Based Li-ion Battery Model via Adaptive Ensemble Sparse Learning and Conformal Prediction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5BEVLPX3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00353}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate electrochemical models are essential for the safe and efficient operation of lithium-ion batteries in real-world applications such as electrified vehicles and grid storage. Reduced-order models (ROM) offer a balance between fidelity and computational efficiency but often struggle to capture complex and nonlinear behaviors, such as the dynamics in the cell voltage response under high C-rate conditions. To address these limitations, this study proposes an Adaptive Ensemble Sparse Identification (AESI) framework that enhances the accuracy of reduced-order li-ion battery models by compensating for unpredictable dynamics. The approach integrates an Extended Single Particle Model (ESPM) with an evolutionary ensemble sparse learning strategy to construct a robust hybrid model. In addition, the AESI framework incorporates a conformal prediction method to provide theoretically guaranteed uncertainty quantification for voltage error dynamics, thereby improving the reliability of the model's predictions. Evaluation across diverse operating conditions shows that the hybrid model (ESPM + AESI) improves the voltage prediction accuracy, achieving mean squared error reductions of up to 46% on unseen data. Prediction reliability is further supported by conformal prediction, yielding statistically valid prediction intervals with coverage ratios of 96.85% and 97.41% for the ensemble models based on bagging and stability selection, respectively.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00353 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of the proposed Adaptive Ensemble Sparse Identification (AESI) framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Hybrid li-ion battery model schematics: integration of ESPM with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Coverage of unique points per MBB sample. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Current and voltage profiles for training (I), validation set (II), testing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Voltage error e distribution of ESPM across (I, SOC) bins. λ2 = 1.743, maximum degree of individual polynomials pc = 1, maximum polynomial degree d = 2, and stability selection threshold τ = 0.41. Table I presents the Mean Squared Error Reduction (MSER), as defined in …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Voltage absolute error distribution of ESPM and ESPM + AESI I [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Voltage prediction of ESPM and hybrid model under training, pHolm-adj. = 0.00 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparative analysis between PBM and hybrid models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: SPCI uncertainty quantification of AESI I in testing. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: SPCI uncertainty quantification of AESI II in testing. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Batteries and fuel cells for emerging electric vehicle markets,

    Z. P. Cano, D. Banham, S. Ye, A. Hintennach, J. Lu, M. Fowler, and Z. Chen, “Batteries and fuel cells for emerging electric vehicle markets,” Nature Energy, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 279–289, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    A review of lithium-ion battery for electric vehicle applications and beyond,

    W. Chen, J. Liang, Z. Yang, and G. Li, “A review of lithium-ion battery for electric vehicle applications and beyond,” Energy Procedia, vol. 158, pp. 4363–4368, 2019, innovative Solutions for Energy Transitions

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    A comparison between physics-based li-ion battery models,

    H. A. A. Ali, L. H. Raijmakers, K. Chayambuka, D. L. Danilov, P. H. Notten, and R.-A. Eichel, “A comparison between physics-based li-ion battery models,” Electrochimica Acta, vol. 493, p. 144360, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Lithium-ion battery multi-scale modeling coupled with simplified electrochemical model and kinetic monte carlo model,

    H. Yu, L. Zhang, W. Wang, K. Yang, Z. Zhang, X. Liang, S. Chen, S. Yang, J. Li, and X. Liu, “Lithium-ion battery multi-scale modeling coupled with simplified electrochemical model and kinetic monte carlo model,” iScience, vol. 26, no. 9, p. 107661, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Modeling of li-ion cells for fast simulation of high c-rate and low temperature operations,

    G. Fan, K. Pan, M. Canova, J. Marcicki, and X. G. Yang, “Modeling of li-ion cells for fast simulation of high c-rate and low temperature operations,” Journal of The Electrochemical Society , vol. 163, no. 5, p. A666, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    New data optimization framework for parameter estimation under uncertainties with application to lithium-ion battery,

    Q. Lai, H. J. Ahn, Y . Kim, Y . N. Kim, and X. Lin, “New data optimization framework for parameter estimation under uncertainties with application to lithium-ion battery,” Applied Energy , vol. 295, p. 117034, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Reinforcement learning of optimal input excitation for parameter estimation with application to li-ion battery,

    R. Huang, J. Fogelquist, and X. Lin, “Reinforcement learning of optimal input excitation for parameter estimation with application to li-ion battery,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics , vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 11 160–11 170, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Real-Time Optimal Design of Experiment for Parameter Identification of Li-Ion Cell Electrochemical Model

    I. Mikesell, S. F. da Silva, M. F. Ozkan, F. E. Idrissi, P. Ramesh, and M. Canova, “Real-time optimal design of experiment for param- eter identification of li-ion cell electrochemical model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.15578, 2025

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    A comparative study between physics, electrical and data driven lithium-ion battery voltage modeling approaches,

    Y . Liang, A. Emadi, O. Gross, C. Vidal, M. Canova, S. Panchal, P. Kollmeyer, M. Naguib, and F. Khanum, “A comparative study between physics, electrical and data driven lithium-ion battery voltage modeling approaches,” SAE Technical Paper, Tech. Rep., 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Particle swarm optimization of elman neural network applied to battery state of charge and state of health estimation,

    M. H. Miranda, F. L. Silva, M. A. Lourenc ¸o, J. J. Eckert, and L. C. Silva, “Particle swarm optimization of elman neural network applied to battery state of charge and state of health estimation,” Energy, vol. 285, p. 129503, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Lithium- ion battery digitalization: Combining physics-based models and machine learning,

    M. N. Amiri, A. H ˚akansson, O. S. Burheim, and J. J. Lamb, “Lithium- ion battery digitalization: Combining physics-based models and machine learning,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , vol. 200, p. 114577, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Combining physics-based and machine learn- ing methods to accelerate innovation in sustainable transportation and beyond: a control perspective,

    G. Pozzato and S. Onori, “Combining physics-based and machine learn- ing methods to accelerate innovation in sustainable transportation and beyond: a control perspective,” in 2023 American Control Conference (ACC). IEEE, 2023, pp. 640–653

    2023

  5. [13]

    Integrating physics-based modeling with machine learning for lithium-ion batteries,

    H. Tu, S. Moura, Y . Wang, and H. Fang, “Integrating physics-based modeling with machine learning for lithium-ion batteries,” Applied energy, vol. 329, p. 120289, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Dynamic models of li-ion batteries for diagnosis and operation: a review and perspective,

    U. Krewer, F. R ¨oder, E. Harinath, R. D. Braatz, B. Bed ¨urftig, and R. Findeisen, “Dynamic models of li-ion batteries for diagnosis and operation: a review and perspective,” Journal of the electrochemical society, vol. 165, no. 16, p. A3656, 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    Discovery of physics from data: Universal laws and discrepancies,

    B. M. De Silva, D. M. Higdon, S. L. Brunton, and J. N. Kutz, “Discovery of physics from data: Universal laws and discrepancies,” Frontiers in artificial intelligence, vol. 3, p. 25, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Discovering a reaction–diffusion model for alzheimer’s disease by combining pinns with symbolic regression,

    Z. Zhang, Z. Zou, E. Kuhl, and G. E. Karniadakis, “Discovering a reaction–diffusion model for alzheimer’s disease by combining pinns with symbolic regression,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 419, p. 116647, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Sindy-crn: Sparse identification of chemical reaction networks from data,

    N. Bhatt, B. Jayawardhana, and S. S.-E. Plaza, “Sindy-crn: Sparse identification of chemical reaction networks from data,” in 2023 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 3512–3518

    2023

  10. [18]

    A data-driven frame- work for learning governing equations of li-ion batteries and co- estimating voltage and state-of-charge,

    O. Ahmadzadeh, Y . Wang, and D. Soudbakhsh, “A data-driven frame- work for learning governing equations of li-ion batteries and co- estimating voltage and state-of-charge,” Journal of Energy Storage , vol. 84, p. 110743, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Data-driven battery modeling based on koopman operator approximation using neural network,

    H. Choi, V . De Angelis, and Y . Preger, “Data-driven battery modeling based on koopman operator approximation using neural network,” in 2023 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–5

    2023

  12. [20]

    Learning the laws of lithium-ion transport in electrolytes using symbolic regression,

    E. Flores, C. W ¨olke, P. Yan, M. Winter, T. Vegge, I. Cekic-Laskovic, and A. Bhowmik, “Learning the laws of lithium-ion transport in electrolytes using symbolic regression,” Digital Discovery , vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 440– 447, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    A computational framework for physics-informed symbolic regression with straightforward integra- tion of domain knowledge,

    L. S. Keren, A. Liberzon, and T. Lazebnik, “A computational framework for physics-informed symbolic regression with straightforward integra- tion of domain knowledge,” Scientific Reports, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 1249, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Improving low-fidelity models of li-ion batteries via hybrid sparse identification of nonlinear dynamics,

    S. F. da Silva, M. F. Ozkan, F. E. Idrissi, P. Ramesh, and M. Canova, “Improving low-fidelity models of li-ion batteries via hybrid sparse identification of nonlinear dynamics,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.12935, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Bagging, optimized dynamic mode decomposition for robust, stable forecasting with spatial and temporal uncertainty quantification,

    D. Sashidhar and J. N. Kutz, “Bagging, optimized dynamic mode decomposition for robust, stable forecasting with spatial and temporal uncertainty quantification,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, vol. 380, no. 2229, p. 20210199, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Battery state-of-charge estimation using data-driven gaussian process kalman filters,

    K.-J. Lee, W.-H. Lee, and K.-K. K. Kim, “Battery state-of-charge estimation using data-driven gaussian process kalman filters,” Journal of Energy Storage , vol. 72, p. 108392, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    A novel gaussian process regression model for state-of-health estimation of lithium-ion battery using charging curve,

    D. Yang, X. Zhang, R. Pan, Y . Wang, and Z. Chen, “A novel gaussian process regression model for state-of-health estimation of lithium-ion battery using charging curve,” Journal of Power Sources , vol. 384, pp. 387–395, 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    V ovk, A

    V . V ovk, A. Gammerman, and G. Shafer, Algorithmic learning in a random world. Springer, 2005, vol. 29

    2005

  19. [27]

    Manokhin, Practical Guide to Applied Conformal Prediction in Python

    V . Manokhin, Practical Guide to Applied Conformal Prediction in Python. Packt Publishing Ltd., Birmingham, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    A reduced-order electrochemical model of li-ion batteries for control and estimation applications,

    G. Fan, X. Li, and M. Canova, “A reduced-order electrochemical model of li-ion batteries for control and estimation applications,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 76–91, 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    Discovering governing equations from data by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems,

    S. L. Brunton, J. L. Proctor, and J. N. Kutz, “Discovering governing equations from data by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems,” Proceedings of the national academy of sciences , vol. 113, no. 15, pp. 3932–3937, 2016

    2016

  22. [30]

    Sparse identification of nonlinear dynamics for rapid model recovery,

    M. Quade, M. Abel, J. Nathan Kutz, and S. L. Brunton, “Sparse identification of nonlinear dynamics for rapid model recovery,” Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science , vol. 28, no. 6, 2018

    2018

  23. [31]

    Scaled-cpikans: Domain scaling in chebyshev-based physics-informed kolmogorov-arnold networks,

    F. Mostajeran and S. A. Faroughi, “Scaled-cpikans: Domain scaling in chebyshev-based physics-informed kolmogorov-arnold networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.02762, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Data-driven identi- fication of parametric partial differential equations,

    S. Rudy, A. Alla, S. L. Brunton, and J. N. Kutz, “Data-driven identi- fication of parametric partial differential equations,” SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems , vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 643–660, 2019

    2019

  25. [33]

    S. N. Lahiri, Resampling methods for dependent data. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    2013

  26. [34]

    Ensemble- sindy: Robust sparse model discovery in the low-data, high-noise limit, with active learning and control,

    U. Fasel, J. N. Kutz, B. W. Brunton, and S. L. Brunton, “Ensemble- sindy: Robust sparse model discovery in the low-data, high-noise limit, with active learning and control,” Proceedings of the Royal Society A , vol. 478, no. 2260, p. 20210904, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Hastie, R

    T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, J. H. Friedman, and J. H. Friedman, The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction . Springer, 2009, vol. 2

    2009

  28. [36]

    Stability selection,

    N. Meinshausen and P. B ¨uhlmann, “Stability selection,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 417–473, 2010

    2010

  29. [37]

    Conformal prediction with neural networks,

    H. Papadopoulos, V . V ovk, and A. Gammerman, “Conformal prediction with neural networks,” in 19th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI 2007) , vol. 2. IEEE, 2007, pp. 388– 395

    2007

  30. [38]

    Sequential predictive conformal inference for time series,

    C. Xu and Y . Xie, “Sequential predictive conformal inference for time series,” in Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 202. PMLR, 23–29 Jul 2023, pp. 38 707–38 727

    2023

  31. [39]

    Conformal prediction interval for dynamic time-series,

    ——, “Conformal prediction interval for dynamic time-series,” in Pro- ceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 139. PMLR, 18–24 Jul 2021, pp. 11 559–11 569

    2021

  32. [40]

    Quantile regression forests

    N. Meinshausen and G. Ridgeway, “Quantile regression forests.” Journal of machine learning research , vol. 7, no. 6, 2006

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.