Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Conformal prediction guarantees interval coverage only when calibration and deployment data are exchangeable. We test joint state-of-charge (SOC) and state-of-health (SOH) intervals when this assumption fails across cells, discharge protocols, chemistries, and an electric-vehicle (EV) driving profile, with calibration data kept separate from training and model selection. At 90% nominal, SOC coverage is 90.9% on a random cycle split but 33.0–81.4% on held-out cells, at most 0.9% on cross-protocol windows with nonzero SOC, at most 5.16% across chemistries, and 0.02% on EV-profile cells (five-seed means). SOH coverage is below nominal under every shift. Four learned baselines (recurrent, convolutional, Transformer, and physics-informed) and an equivalent-circuit Kalman filter fall short on the hardest cells. Density-ratio and optimal-transport weighting, conformalised quantile regression, and group-conditional calibration reach nominal mean coverage on no held-out cell. Recalibrating on the deployed cell’s five latest labelled cycles restores coverage to 85.5–90.3% on held-out cells without retraining, but under protocol and EV-profile shift only with intervals over half the SOC range. Under chemistry shift, optimal-transport alignment configured on labelled target data lowers SOC error by 10–59%, yet only fine-tuning with target-domain calibration restores coverage (88.0–89.3%). Source-calibrated conformal intervals are not valid under deployment shift by default.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: