The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of prognostic algorithms for estimating remaining useful life of batteries
Abstract
The estimation of remaining useful life (RUL) of a faulty component is at the centre of system prognostics and health management. It gives operators a potent tool in decision making by quantifying how much time is left until functionality is lost. RUL prediction needs to contend with multiple sources of errors, like modelling inconsistencies, system noise and degraded sensor fidelity, which leads to unsatisfactory performance from classical techniques like autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) and extended Kalman filtering (EKF). The Bayesian theory of uncertainty management provides a way to contain these problems. The relevance vector machine (RVM), the Bayesian treatment of the well known support vector machine (SVM), a kernel-based regression/classification technique, is used for model development. This model is incorporated into a particle filter (PF) framework, where statistical estimates of noise and anticipated operational conditions are used to provide estimates of RUL in the form of a probability density function (pdf). We present here a comparative study of the above-mentioned approaches on experimental data collected from Li-ion batteries. Batteries were chosen as an example of a complex system whose internal state variables are either inaccessible to sensors or hard to measure under operational conditions. In addition, battery performance is strongly influenced by ambient environmental and load conditions.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory
Vapnik, V. N. (1995) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-2440-0 · Cited by 39,138
Cited by
Data-driven prediction of battery cycle life before capacity degradation
Severson, K. A., Attia, P. M., Jin, N., Perkins, N., Jiang, B., Yang, Z., Chen, M. H., Aykol, M., Herring, P. K., Fraggedakis, D., et al. (2019) · Nature Energy · doi:10.1038/s41560-019-0356-8 · Cited by 3,228
Remaining useful life estimation – A review on the statistical data driven approaches
Si, X.-S., Wang, W., Hu, C.-H., & Zhou, D.-H. (2011) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2010.11.018 · Cited by 2,162
Hu, X., Xu, L., Lin, X., & Pecht, M. (2020) · Joule · doi:10.1016/j.joule.2019.11.018 · Cited by 1,320
Waag, W., Fleischer, C., & Sauer, D. U. (2014) · Journal of Power Sources · doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.02.064 · Cited by 1,059
Liu, D., Pang, J., Zhou, J., Peng, Y., & Pecht, M. (2013) · Microelectronics Reliability · doi:10.1016/j.microrel.2013.03.010 · Cited by 443
Metadata
- Authors
- Saha, B., Goebel, K., & Christophersen, J.
- Venue
- Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2009-06
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 3-4
- Pages
- 293-308
- ISSN
- 0142-3312 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-0369
- OpenAlex
- W2007655149
- Cited by
- 423
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 14.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of prognostic algorithms for estimating remaining useful life of batteries. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0142331208092030
- The paper
- Saha, B., Goebel, K., & Christophersen, J. (2009). Comparison of prognostic algorithms for estimating remaining useful life of batteries. Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142331208092030
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.