Table 7 Comparison of battery SOH prediction performance based on LOOCV.
| Â | Model | Evaluation metrics | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Â | MAE | MSE | \(\overline{R^{2}}\) | RMSE | MAPE | |
Dataset 1 | MHAT-TCN | 0.0064 | 0.0001 | 0.9968 | 0.0118 | 1.0430 |
\({\textrm{TCN}}\) | 0.0082 | 0.0002 | 0.9958 | 0.0133 | 1.3049 | |
GRU | 0.0146 | 0.0003 | 0.9921 | 0.0184 | 2.1709 | |
LSTM | 0.0168 | 0.0004 | 0.9902 | 0.0205 | 2.5276 | |
Dataset 2 | MHAT-TCN | 0.0107 | 0.0003 | 0.9954 | 0.0175 | 2.3723 |
\({\textrm{TCN}}\) | 0.0203 | 0.0007 | 0.9891 | 0.0270 | 3.5583 | |
GRU | 0.0196 | 0.0008 | 0.9889 | 0.0273 | 4.2291 | |
LSTM | 0.0206 | 0.0009 | 0.9875 | 0.0289 | 4.4806 | |
Dataset 3 | MHAT-TCN | 0.0073 | 0.0002 | 0.9960 | 0.0133 | 1.2171 |
\({\textrm{TCN}}\) | 0.0112 | 0.0006 | 0.9869 | 0.0238 | 1.8182 | |
GRU | 0.0138 | 0.0005 | 0.9894 | 0.0213 | 2.5824 | |
LSTM | 0.0147 | 0.0005 | 0.9892 | 0.0215 | 2.6284 | |
Dataset 4 | MHAT-TCN | 0.0118 | 0.0003 | 0.9930 | 0.0171 | 1.6818 |
\({\textrm{TCN}}\) | 0.0110 | 0.0006 | 0.9844 | 0.0254 | 2.1362 | |
GRU | 0.0128 | 0.0005 | 0.9896 | 0.0207 | 2.2425 | |
LSTM | 0.0137 | 0.0005 | 0.9878 | 0.0224 | 2.4834 | |