Performance Comparison of NARX & RNN-LSTM Neural Networks for LiFePO4 Battery State of Charge Estimation
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to evaluate the performance of NARX network and an improved RNN with LSTM artificial neural networks to estimate the SOC of LiFePO4 batteries used in EVs, HEVs, UAVs, UUVs and energy storage systems for power electronics and solar power systems. Due to unequal self-discharge rates, difference in current leakage and temperature under repeated charge discharge cycles of the battery pack, made by series and parallel combinations of different cells to increase the power rating for different applications, the SOC of each battery cell mismatched with respect to others. Therefore, an accurate estimation of SOC is required for optimal power use of Li-Ion battery pack. In this research two neural network models for SOC estimation of LiFePO4 batteries are designed and their performance is evaluated on different parameters. These models are trained by optimal selection of hyper parameters using real time data of voltage, current and battery pack temperature as input and SOC as output of the models. The input dataset has been preprocessed as multivariate time series forecasting problem for RNN-LSTM neural network. The tested results showed that accurate results with an RMSE lower than 0.001 is achieved in NARX and lower than 0.002 is achieved in RNN-LSTM at different test datasets. However, RNN-LSTM has better performance than NARX in multivariate time series in seq2seq future forecasting configuration with an RMSE lower than 0.003 at different test datasets with a temperature range of 5 to 25°C.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Abbas et al. proposed a Bayesian regularization optimization approach for LSTM-based SOC estimators that outperformed the "trainlm" training function in accuracy.
“They proposed a Bayesian regularization optimization approach, which outperformed the “trainlm” training function in accuracy.”
From Advancements in the estimation of the state of charge of lithium-ion battery: a comprehensive review of traditional and deep learning approaches (2025) · cites this paper as [95]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 24 · Cited by 41
- Authors
- Abbas, G., Nawaz, M., & Kamran, F.
- Affiliations
- HITEC University (PK)
- ORCID
- Nawaz, Menaa
- Venue
- 2019 16th International Bhurban Conference on Applied Sciences and Technology (IBCAST)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2019-01
- Pages
- 463-468
- OpenAlex
- W2921514808
- Cited by
- 41
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 6.22
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- International Bhurban Conference on Applied Sciences and Technology (IBCAST) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Advanced Battery Technologies Research
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Advancements in Battery Materials
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Control Systems and Identification
- Keywords
- lithium iron phosphate batteries, state of charge estimation, NARX neural network, LSTM neural network, multivariate time series forecasting, cell mismatch, battery temperature effects, electric vehicles, energy storage systems, hyperparameter optimization
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