State-of-Charge Estimation of Li-ion Battery Using Gated Recurrent Unit With One-Cycle Learning Rate Policy
Abstract
Deep learning has gained much traction in application to state-of-charge (SOC) estimation for Li-ion batteries in electric vehicle applications. However, with the vast selection of architectures and hyperparameter combinations, it remains challenging to design an accurate and robust SOC estimation model with a sufficiently low computation cost. Therefore, this study provides a comparative evaluation among commonly used deep learning models from the recurrent, convolutional, and feedforward architecture benchmarked on an openly available Li-ion battery dataset. To evaluate model robustness and generalization capability, we train and test models on different drive cycles at various temperatures and compute the root mean squared error (RMSE) and mean absolute error metric. To evaluate model computation costs, we run models in real-time and record the model size, floating-point operations per second (FLOPS), and run-time duration per datapoint. This study proposes a two-hidden layer stacked gated recurrent unit model trained with a one-cycle policy learning rate scheduler. The proposed model achieves a minimum RMSE of 0.52% on the train dataset and 0.65% on the test dataset while maintaining a relatively low computation cost. Executing the proposed model in real-time takes up approximately 1 MB in disk space, 300K FLOPS, and 0.03 ms run-time per datapoint. This makes the proposed model feasible to be executed on lightweight battery management system processors.
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?
Hannan et al. introduced a Stack-GRU-based estimator, achieving an RMSE of 0.65%, surpassing Stack-LSTM.
“Hannan et al. introduced a Stack-GRU-based estimator, achieving an RMSE error metric of 0.65%, surpassing Stack-LSTM[84].”
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 [84]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 37 · Cited by 70
- Authors
- Hannan, M. A., How, D. N. T., Mansor, M. B., Hossain Lipu, M. S., Ker, P., & Muttaqi, K.
- Affiliations
- Universiti Tenaga Nasional (MY)
- National University of Malaysia (MY)
- University of Wollongong (AU)
- ORCID
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
- Published
- 2021-05
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 2964-2971
- ISSN
- 0093-9994 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-9367
- OpenAlex
- W3137292479
- Cited by
- 70
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 4
- FWCI
- 3.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications (publishedVersion)
- Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (20190101LRGS)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Advanced Battery Technologies Research
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Advancements in Battery Materials
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Technologies
- Keywords
- state of charge estimation, lithium-ion batteries, gated recurrent unit, electric vehicles, battery management systems, real-time inference, computational cost, driving cycles, temperature effects, model comparison
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