Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This approach improves damage prediction efficiency in battery packs using active learning and high-fidelity data.
With the rapid development of new energy vehicles, fast and reliable prediction of power battery collision damage has become increasingly important. Traditional finite-element analysis is computationally expensive and difficult to deploy for rapid prediction under varying conditions. Although learning-based methods are faster, they usually rely on single-fidelity data: high-fidelity data is accurate but scarce and costly, while low-fidelity data is abundant but less reliable. Existing multi-fidelity methods alleviate this issue, yet often suffer from imbalanced sample allocation and weak cross-fidelity modeling. Moreover, current adaptive sampling strategies cannot dynamically determine the appropriate fidelity for different regions of the design space. To address these challenges, we propose HNGP-LCA, a multi-fidelity active learning framework for battery pack collision damage prediction. Our method consists of two components: (1) an Ensemble Nested Gaussian Process module that integrates single-layer and double-layer nested Gaussian process regression to better capture high–low fidelity correlations; and (2) a Location Information Cost-aware Active Learning strategy that leverages positional information to reconstruct expected improvement under different fidelities, enabling dynamic fidelity selection during sampling. Experiments on multiple synthetic benchmarks and a real battery pack engineering case demonstrate that HNGP-LCA achieves a better trade-off among accuracy, efficiency, and cost than strong baselines such as NARCO and MFBO. In the engineering case, it improves prediction accuracy by 0.6% over NARCO and 1.29% over MFBO, while reducing dependence on expensive high-fidelity data. These results show that HNGP-LCA provides an effective and practical solution for battery collision damage prediction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jiang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: