Closed-loop optimization of fast-charging protocols for batteries with machine learning
Abstract
Simultaneously optimizing many design parameters in time-consuming experiments causes bottlenecks in a broad range of scientific and engineering disciplines 1,2. One such example is process and control optimization for lithium-ion batteries during materials selection, cell manufacturing and operation. A typical objective is to maximize battery lifetime; however, conducting even a single experiment to evaluate lifetime can take months to years 3-5. Furthermore, both large parameter spaces and high sampling variability 3,6,7 necessitate a large number of experiments. Hence, the key challenge is to reduce both the number and the duration of the experiments required. Here we develop and demonstrate a machine learning methodology to efficiently optimize a parameter space specifying the current and voltage profiles of six-step, ten-minute fast-charging protocols for maximizing battery cycle life, which can alleviate range anxiety for electric-vehicle users 8,9. We combine two key elements to reduce the optimization cost: an early-prediction model 5, which reduces the time per experiment by predicting the final cycle life using data from the first few cycles, and a Bayesian optimization algorithm 10,11, which reduces the number of experiments by balancing exploration and exploitation to efficiently probe the parameter space of charging protocols. Using this methodology, we rapidly identify high-cycle-life charging protocols among 224 candidates in 16 days (compared with over 500 days using exhaustive search without early prediction), and subsequently validate the accuracy and efficiency of our optimization approach. Our closed-loop methodology automatically incorporates feedback from past experiments to inform future decisions and can be generalized to other applications in battery design and, more broadly, other scientific domains that involve time-intensive experiments and multi-dimensional design spaces.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The second dataset was generated through experiments using 45 six-step fast charging protocols, resulting in a total of 37,955 cycles.
“The second dataset was generated through experiments using 45 six-step fast charging protocols,70 each with a uniform charging protocol, resulting in a total of 37,955 cycles.”
From Battery state of health estimation under fast charging via deep transfer learning (2025) · cites this paper as [70]
The Validation experiments section (p. 10) describes nine charging protocols tested on five batteries each—45 batteries, not 45 protocols. The paper describes its protocols as six-step (p. 4), but the passages in our copy do not establish a total of 37,955 cycles. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredWork in battery ML has focused on predicting battery state, degradation, and remaining lifetime using supervised learning, fuzzy logic, and clustering.
“Work in this area has focused on predicting battery state, degradation, and remaining lifetime using supervised learning techniques, fuzzy logic, and clustering [42,104,218,358,414,725,735,819,854].”
From Tackling climate change with machine learning (2023) · cites this paper as [42]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 44 · Cited by 1,180
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [37]Çengel, Y. A. & Boles, M. A. Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach (McGraw-Hill Education, 2015).
- Authors
- Attia, P. M., Grover, A., Jin, N., Severson, K. A., Markov, T. M., Liao, Y.-H., Chen, M. H., Cheong, B., Perkins, N., Yang, Z., Herring, P. K., Aykol, M., Harris, S. J., Braatz, R. D., Ermon, S., & Chueh, W. C.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Toyota Research Institute (US)
- Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (US)
- SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory (US)
- Corresponding author
- Braatz, Richard D.
- Ermon, Stefano
- Chueh, William C.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2020-02-19
- Volume
- 578
- Issue
- 7795
- Pages
- 397-402
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- OpenAlex
- W3007217854
- Cited by
- 1,180
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 271 · 2025: 221 · 2024: 208 · 2023: 173 · 2022: 144 · 2021: 115 · 2020: 48
- FWCI
- 44.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Nature (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Advanced Battery Technologies Research
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Advancements in Battery Materials
- Keywords
- lithium-ion batteries, battery cycle life, Bayesian optimization, closed-loop optimization, electric vehicles, range anxiety, experimental cost reduction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review