Accelerating Battery Material Optimization through iterative Machine Learning

Changhwan Lee; Geunho Choi; Inchul Park; Insoo Ye; Jieun Kim; Sang-Cheol Nam; Seon-Hwa Lee

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Accelerating Battery Material Optimization through iterative Machine Learning

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Two rounds of active-learning-chosen experiments reduced mean absolute prediction error for NCM cathode capacity from roughly 2.5% to 1.5% and converged measured capacities to a 223–229 mAh/g window.

desk verdict A useful industrial case study whose acceleration claim is undercut by missing baselines and an error metric measured on model-selected points. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18162 v1 pith:XY3V2BGF submitted 2025-05-12 eess.SP cs.LG

Seon-Hwa Lee , Insoo Ye , Changhwan Lee , Jieun Kim , Geunho Choi , Sang-Cheol Nam , Inchul Park This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SPcs.LG

keywords activelearningmachinebatterymaterialsNCMcathodegradientboostingparticleswarmoptimizationanthropogenicbiasfailedexperiments

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

An iterative machine-learning workflow that uses active learning to choose the next experiments can break the bottlenecks of data scarcity and human bias in battery cathode development. The paper applies the workflow to years of NCM cathode synthesis records and reports that two active-learning rounds, adding ten new experiments each, reduced the mean absolute prediction error for initial discharge capacity from roughly 2.5% to 1.5% and pulled measured capacities into a 223–229 mAh/g window. It argues that the improvement comes from deliberately retraining on suboptimal and failed outcomes, which traditional Edisonian practice discards, and from widening parameter distributions that expert heuristics had compressed. If the claim holds, the approach offers a practical way to explore high-dimensional manufacturing parameter spaces with a handful of targeted experiments.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is an active-learning loop: a GBM, an ensemble model that combines many weak decision trees, predicts initial discharge capacity from composition, dopant, calcination, and coating variables; a Particle Swarm Optimizer (PSO) searches that space in discrete steps (5 °C calcination steps, 30-minute coating-time steps, small dopant increments) and returns the top ten predicted configurations; those ten are synthesized and tested; and all results, including failures, are folded back into the GBM for the next round. The loop does two things at once: it widens the parameter distributions the model has seen, and it feeds the model boundary information from suboptimal runs, which the authors identify as the key to sharper predictions.

What would settle it

Run a matched control in which the same zero-shot GBM proposes two rounds of ten experiments chosen uniformly at random from the same candidate grid; if random selection achieves comparable error reduction and a comparable 223–229 mAh/g convergence, the active-learning loop is not what drives the improvement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors' central claim is that an iterative active-learning loop, built on a Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM) and a Particle Swarm Optimizer, can systematically explore an industrial NCM cathode design space that years of heuristic experimentation left biased and incomplete. Starting from a zero-shot GBM trained only on historical records, the model targets the underrepresented 94% Ni composition and proposes ten conditions; validating them gives capacities of 215–229 mAh/g with about 2.5% average predictive error. After retraining on all ten outcomes, a second round proposes ten further conditions whose measured capacities converge to 223–229 mAh/g while average error drops to about 1.5%; the highest predicted value of about 229 mAh/g was not itself reached, but the measurements cluster tightly around it. The authors attribute the gain to the deliberate inclusion of failed and boundary experiments in each retraining step, which supplies the model with the negative data it needs to locate performance boundaries rather than merely reproducing known successes.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes the multi-year historical dataset was produced under effectively constant equipment and process conditions, with no batch- or date-level metadata supplied to verify this; if unrecorded drift in mixing, furnace heat, or gas flow occurred, the model may attribute capacity differences to the wrong design variables.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Two ten-experiment rounds sufficed to shrink the mean absolute prediction error from roughly 2.5% to 1.5%, so the workflow can replace broad one-factor-at-a-time sweeps with a small number of targeted experiments.
By deliberately proposing conditions in sparse regions, such as 94% Ni and coating temperatures far from the heuristic cluster, the loop counteracts researcher fixation on historically successful parameter values.
Retraining on suboptimal outcomes is presented as essential: without the failed runs, the model would keep interpolating known successes instead of learning performance boundaries.
The paper points to expanding the dataset to additional variables and multiple laboratories as the natural follow-up, since the data-preparation and retraining steps are not specific to one chemistry.
Predictive accuracy and the spread of experimental outcomes both improve across iterations, indicating that reliability, not just peak predicted performance, is gained from each retraining cycle.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A direct control experiment would test whether the gain comes from active selection or simply from adding any new data: run the same two rounds with randomly chosen conditions and compare the final error and capacity window.
The paper's emphasis on negative data implies a broader data-management lesson: industrial archives that discard failed runs are not merely incomplete, they are biased in a way that no amount of successful examples can correct.
The 223–229 mAh/g convergence may reflect the optimizer exploiting the model's known high-capacity region rather than a proven global optimum; three or more iterations, or a comparison against a different optimizer, would be needed to separate these.
Applying the identical workflow to a different cathode chemistry, for example a lithium-rich or cobalt-free composition, would test whether two iterations give a comparable error tightening outside the NCM family.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper is a genuine industrial case study: two active-learning cycles on NCM cathode synthesis, where the new experiments are truly out-of-sample. That is its real strength. The authors also make a good empirical point about anthropogenic bias in their historical dataset—the skewed coating-temperature distribution in Figure 2 is a nice illustration of heuristic fixation. Including failed experiments is sensible and consistent with the cited literature.

The central claim, though, is not supported. The abstract says active learning 'markedly reduces the total number of experimental cycles necessary,' but there is no same-budget baseline: no random, OFAT, or expert-selection comparison. Without it, the observed convergence of the ten two-shot experiments to 223–229 mAh/g could simply reflect that the previously sparse 94% Ni region happens to be high-capacity. The ML guidance is not shown to be the cause.

The error metric also has a problem. The reported drop from ~2.5% to ~1.5% is computed on the ten points the model selected in each iteration. Those points are concentrated in a narrow high-capacity region, so the improvement shows local calibration, not better global prediction. A held-out test set sampled more broadly, or at least error on the original dataset after retraining, would be needed.

There is also an internal mismatch. The Methods say the active-learning loop identifies regions of high predictive uncertainty or sparse coverage, but the actual selection is PSO maximizing predicted discharge capacity over 1000 iterations. That is exploitation, not exploration. The prose and the implementation disagree, and this matters for how the results are framed.

Weaker issues: the role of failed data is asserted, not ablated; no code or data are released; and the historical dataset's consistency relies on 'meticulously maintained wherever possible' without batch-level metadata. The last concern is minor because the new experiments were run under controlled conditions, but it limits confidence in the zero-shot model.

Who gets value from this? Practitioners in industrial battery materials who want a template for applying GBM plus PSO to their own data, and anyone teaching active-learning evaluation pitfalls. It deserves a serious referee, because the dataset and demonstration are real and the weaknesses are addressable. But the authors need to add baselines, fix the selection-method description, and either release code or report detailed model settings. If those changes are made, the paper could be a solid case study; as it stands, the acceleration headline goes beyond what the data show.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports an iterative machine-learning framework for NCM cathode optimization at industrial scale. The authors compile a multi-year heuristic-driven dataset, train a gradient boosting model to predict initial discharge capacity, then run two active-learning iterations in which the model proposes ten new experiments per round via particle swarm optimization. After the first iteration the mean absolute predictive error drops from about 2.5% to about 1.5%, and experimentally measured capacities converge to 223–229 mAh/g in the second round. The central claims are that active learning markedly reduces the number of experimental cycles needed and that incorporating failed or suboptimal experiments improves model robustness and reduces anthropogenic bias.

Significance. If the acceleration claim were supported, this would be a valuable demonstration of ML-guided experimentation on real industrial-scale battery processing, with out-of-sample validation on genuinely new synthesis experiments. The paper's explicit use of negative data, its attention to heuristic biases in historical records, and its real kiln-scale synthesis conditions are strengths that distinguish it from synthetic or small-batch academic studies. However, the significance is currently limited because the central acceleration claim is not tested against any same-budget comparator, and the reported error reduction is measured on model-selected points rather than a representative test set. The work is a useful case study but does not yet quantitatively establish that active learning outperforms standard baselines.

major comments (4)

[Abstract; Results, 'Iterative Active Learning'; Conclusion] The central claim that active learning 'markedly reduces the total number of experimental cycles necessary' is a relative claim, but the paper provides no same-budget baseline. There is no comparison against random selection, OFAT, or expert-driven selection using the same 20 new experiments. Without such a control, the observed convergence to 223–229 mAh/g could simply reflect that the previously unexplored ~94% Ni region naturally yields high capacities. Please add a baseline comparison or explicitly reframe the claim to describe what was demonstrated (e.g., convergence under one specific AL policy) rather than claiming a general acceleration relative to unspecified alternatives.
[Results, 'Iterative Active Learning'; Figure 4] The reported reduction in mean absolute predictive error, from ~2.5% to ~1.5%, is computed on the ten AL-proposed experiments in each round. These points are not a representative sample of the design space: they are concentrated in the narrow high-capacity region that the model (via PSO) was explicitly optimizing. The error decrease therefore shows local calibration in a targeted region, not improved global predictive accuracy. Please evaluate the model on a held-out test set sampled uniformly from the parameter space, or at least report the model's error on the original dataset after retraining with the 20 new points, so the reader can distinguish local refinement from genuine generalization.
[Methods, 'Domain Adaptation Framework using Particle Swarm Optimization'] There is a mismatch between the stated active-learning mechanism and the implemented acquisition strategy. The text says the GBM model 'identified regions of high predictive uncertainty or sparse coverage,' but the PSO procedure described maximizes predicted initial discharge capacity only, with no explicit uncertainty term or coverage criterion in the acquisition function. As written, the method is greedy optimization under the current surrogate model, not uncertainty-based active learning. Please clarify the exact acquisition function used, including how uncertainty or sparsity entered the selection of the ten experimental conditions.
[Results and discussion, 'Anthropogenic Bias...'; Methods, 'Experimental Methods'] The validity of the entire modeling exercise depends on the assertion that 'consistent experimental conditions were meticulously maintained wherever possible' across a multi-year dataset. Unintentional variations in mixing homogeneity, furnace heat distribution, gas flow, or raw-material lots could be confounded with the recorded design variables, and the paper provides no batch-level or date-level metadata to verify this assumption. Please provide evidence of process stability (e.g., control charts of residual lithium, pH, tap density, or XRD metrics that were monitored but not used in ML) or discuss how potential drifts were handled.

minor comments (5)

[Introduction, first paragraph] The phrase 'iterative, iterative ML-driven active learning framework' contains a duplicated word; one 'iterative' should be removed.
[Table 1 (labeled 'Table A' in text)] The table is referred to as 'Table A' in the Results section but is numbered 'Table 1' in the caption; please make the in-text reference consistent.
[Figure 5] The red points are described as 'domain expert-based experimental results' but the source of these data and how they were generated is not explained in the main text or methods; please clarify whether they come from the historical dataset or new expert-selected experiments.
[References] Several references are incomplete or nonstandard (e.g., reference 1 lacks author and title, references 10 and 38 lack full bibliographic details). Please format all references consistently.
[General] The manuscript does not state whether the dataset and code are available. Given the emphasis on data-driven methods and the importance of reproducibility, a data availability statement (even if data cannot be public due to industrial confidentiality) is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: active-learning predictions are out-of-sample experiments; the only self-citation is a non-load-bearing domain claim.

full rationale

The paper's central loop trains a GBM on historical NCM synthesis data, uses PSO to propose ten new parameter sets, runs those experiments, and retrains. The reported capacity predictions (one-shot and two-shot) are evaluated on newly performed experiments that were not in the training set, so the error reduction from ~2.5% to ~1.5% is an out-of-sample result rather than a fitted quantity renamed as prediction. The only apparent self-citation, ref. 38 (Choi et al.), is used for the peripheral statement that researchers set coating temperature near the coating material's melting point; that claim is not the basis of the active-learning demonstration and is independently supported by the skewed distribution shown in Figure 2. The absence of a same-budget random/expert baseline weakens the comparative acceleration claim, and the error metric is computed on AL-selected points rather than a uniform test set, but these are evidentiary limitations, not circular reductions: no equation or definition in the paper makes the predicted capacities equal to the training inputs by construction. Accordingly, no specific circular step can be quoted, and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest mainly on the quality of the industrial dataset and on design choices such as batch size, PSO grid granularity, and GBM hyperparameters. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)

GBM hyperparameters = not reported
Tuned by random search over broad ranges (subsample 0.01-1.0, n_estimators 50-300, max_depth 3-8, learning_rate 0.001-0.2, min_samples_split 2-9); final values not given, so the reported accuracy depends on unstated choices.
Active learning batch size = 10 per iteration
The number of experiments selected per PSO round is fixed at 10; the central claim of cycle reduction depends on this batch size, which is not justified or varied.
PSO discretization steps = 5 C calcination, 30 min coating, 0.0005-0.001 dopant concentration
Search granularity is hand-chosen and affects which conditions can be proposed, hence the claimed exploration benefit.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Multi-year historical experiments were conducted under consistent conditions, minimizing confounding factors.
Methods state 'consistent experimental conditions were meticulously maintained wherever possible.' If uncontrolled furnace, mixing, or gas-flow variations occurred, model attributions to design variables would be invalid.
domain assumption The recorded design variables suffice to predict initial discharge capacity.
The model uses composition, coating, and temperature variables only; unrecorded microstructural factors such as particle size distribution are assumed to be captured indirectly or constant.
domain assumption Initial discharge capacity is the appropriate optimization target.
Cycle life, rate capability, and cost are not modeled; the acceleration claim is framed around initial discharge capacity only.
domain assumption GBM is an adequate surrogate for the true response surface.
The entire active learning loop depends on GBM predictions; no comparison with other surrogate models inside the loop is given.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Accelerating Battery Material Optimization through iterative Machine Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XY3V2BGF

@misc{pith2026250518162,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Accelerating Battery Material Optimization through iterative Machine Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XY3V2BGF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18162}
}

read the original abstract

The performance of battery materials is determined by their composition and the processing conditions employed during commercial-scale fabrication, where raw materials undergo complex processing steps with various additives to yield final products. As the complexity of these parameters expands with the development of industry, conventional one-factor-at-a-time (OFAT) experiment becomes old fashioned. While domain expertise aids in parameter optimization, this traditional approach becomes increasingly vulnerable to cognitive limitations and anthropogenic biases as the complexity of factors grows. Herein, we introduce an iterative machine learning (ML) framework that integrates active learning to guide targeted experimentation and facilitate incremental model refinement. This method systematically leverages comprehensive experimental observations, including both successful and unsuccessful results, effectively mitigating human-induced biases and alleviating data scarcity. Consequently, it significantly accelerates exploration within the high-dimensional design space. Our results demonstrate that active-learning-driven experimentation markedly reduces the total number of experimental cycles necessary, underscoring the transformative potential of ML-based strategies in expediting battery material optimization.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

[1]

World Energy Outlook Special Report Batteries and Secure Energy Transitions

work page
[2]

Unravelling supply chain complexity in maintenance operations of battery production

Bokrantz, Jon, et al. "Unravelling supply chain complexity in maintenance operations of battery production." Production Planning & Control (2024): 1-22

work page 2024
[3]

High-capacity oxide cathode beyond 300 mAh/g: focus review

Jiao, Sichen, et al. "High-capacity oxide cathode beyond 300 mAh/g: focus review." ACS Energy Letters 8.7 (2023): 3025-3037

work page 2023
[4]

Opportunities and challenges of lithium ion batteries in automotive applications

Masias, Alvaro, James Marcicki, and William A. Paxton. "Opportunities and challenges of lithium ion batteries in automotive applications." ACS energy letters 6.2 (2021): 621-630

work page 2021
[5]

Nano-rods in Ni-rich layered cathodes for practical batteries

Park, Geon-Tae, et al. "Nano-rods in Ni-rich layered cathodes for practical batteries." Chemical Society Reviews (2024)

work page 2024
[6]

Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2023 concerning batteries and waste batteries, amending Directive 2008/98/EC and Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and repealing Directive 2006/66/EC (Text with EEA relevance)

work page 2023
[7]

Inflation Reduction Act of 2022

work page 2022
[8]

Assessing the feasibility of the Inflation Reduction Act’s EV critical mineral targets

Trost, Jenna N., and Jennifer B. Dunn. "Assessing the feasibility of the Inflation Reduction Act’s EV critical mineral targets." Nature sustainability 6.6 (2023): 639-643

work page 2023

Show all 41 references

[9]

Critically assessing sodium-ion technology roadmaps and scenarios for techno -economic competitiveness against lithium -ion batteries

Yao, Adrian, Sally M. Benson, and William C. Chueh. "Critically assessing sodium-ion technology roadmaps and scenarios for techno -economic competitiveness against lithium -ion batteries." Nature Energy (2025): 1-13

2025
[10]

Innovation in Cathode Manufacturing: Enhancing Battery Efficiency and Sustainability
[11]

Materials and processing of lithium -ion battery cathodes

Fu, Wenbin, et al. "Materials and processing of lithium -ion battery cathodes." Nanoenergy Advances 3.2 (2023): 138-154

2023
[12]

Human -and machine -centred designs of molecules and materials for sustainability and decarbonization

Peng, Jiayu, et al. "Human -and machine -centred designs of molecules and materials for sustainability and decarbonization." Nature Reviews Materials 7.12 (2022): 991-1009

2022
[13]

Optimizing high energy density sulfur cathodes: A multivariate approach to electrode formulation and processing

Spackman, Isaac, et al. "Optimizing high energy density sulfur cathodes: A multivariate approach to electrode formulation and processing." Energy Storage Materials 73 (2024): 103727

2024
[14]

How to optimize materials and devices via design of experiments and machine learning: Demonstration using organic photovoltaics

Cao, Bing, et al. "How to optimize materials and devices via design of experiments and machine learning: Demonstration using organic photovoltaics." ACS nano 12.8 (2018): 7434-7444

2018
[15]

Machine learning assisted synthesis of lithium -ion batteries cathode materials

Liow, Chi Hao, et al. "Machine learning assisted synthesis of lithium -ion batteries cathode materials." Nano Energy 98 (2022): 107214

2022
[16]

Maximizing the energy density and stability of Ni -rich layered cathode materials with multivalent dopants via machine learning

Kim, Minseon, et al. "Maximizing the energy density and stability of Ni -rich layered cathode materials with multivalent dopants via machine learning." Chemical Engineering Journal 452 (2023): 139254

2023
[17]

Prediction on Discharging Properties of Nickel –Manganese Materials for High‐Performance Sodium ‐Ion Batteries via Machine Learning Methods

Yang, Shijie, et al. "Prediction on Discharging Properties of Nickel –Manganese Materials for High‐Performance Sodium ‐Ion Batteries via Machine Learning Methods." Energy Technology 10.11 (2022): 2200733

2022
[18]

Capacity prediction of K-ion batteries: a machine learning based approach for high throughput screening of electrode materials

Manna, Souvik, et al. "Capacity prediction of K-ion batteries: a machine learning based approach for high throughput screening of electrode materials." Materials Advances 3.21 (2022): 7833-7845

2022
[19]

Ab Initio Design of Ni ‐Rich Cathode Material with Assistance of Machine Learning for High Energy Lithium‐Ion Batteries

Zhang, Xinyu, et al. "Ab Initio Design of Ni ‐Rich Cathode Material with Assistance of Machine Learning for High Energy Lithium‐Ion Batteries." Energy & Environmental Materials 7.6 (2024): e12744

2024
[20]

Demonstrating Linked Battery Data To Accelerate Knowledge Flow in Battery Science

Dechent, Philipp, et al. "Demonstrating Linked Battery Data To Accelerate Knowledge Flow in Battery Science." arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.23303 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[21]

An autonomous laboratory for the accelerated synthesis of novel materials

Szymanski, Nathan J., et al. "An autonomous laboratory for the accelerated synthesis of novel materials." Nature 624.7990 (2023): 86-91

2023
[22]

Utilizing Machine Learning to Advance Battery Materials Design: Challenges and Prospects

Manna, Souvik, et al. "Utilizing Machine Learning to Advance Battery Materials Design: Challenges and Prospects." Chemistry of Materials 37.5 (2025): 1759-1787

2025
[23]

Inverse design of nanoporous crystalline reticular materials with deep generative models

Yao, Zhenpeng, et al. "Inverse design of nanoporous crystalline reticular materials with deep generative models." Nature Machine Intelligence 3.1 (2021): 76-86

2021
[24]

Perspective: Materials informatics and big data: Realization of the “fourth paradigm

Agrawal, Ankit, and Alok Choudhary. "Perspective: Materials informatics and big data: Realization of the “fourth paradigm” of science in materials science." Apl Materials 4.5 (2016)

2016
[25]

Machine-learning-assisted materials discovery using failed experiments

Raccuglia, Paul, et al. "Machine-learning-assisted materials discovery using failed experiments." Nature 533.7601 (2016): 73-76

2016
[26]

Machine learning for chemical reactivity: the importance of failed experiments

Strieth‐Kalthoff, Felix, et al. "Machine learning for chemical reactivity: the importance of failed experiments." Angewandte Chemie International Edition 61.29 (2022): e202204647

2022
[27]

Active learning in materials science with emphasis on adaptive sampling using uncertainties for targeted design

Lookman, Turab, et al. "Active learning in materials science with emphasis on adaptive sampling using uncertainties for targeted design." npj Computational Materials 5.1 (2019): 21

2019
[28]

Active learning platform for accelerating the search for high-voltage cathode materials in an extensive chemical space

Kim, Heekyu, et al. "Active learning platform for accelerating the search for high-voltage cathode materials in an extensive chemical space." The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 127.38 (2023): 18902 - 18913

2023
[29]

A review of machine learning for the optimization of production processes

Weichert, Dorina, et al. "A review of machine learning for the optimization of production processes." The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 104.5 (2019): 1889-1902

2019
[30]

Machine learning -assisted multi -objective optimization of battery manufacturing from synthetic data generated by physics-based simulations

Duquesnoy, Marc, et al. "Machine learning -assisted multi -objective optimization of battery manufacturing from synthetic data generated by physics-based simulations." Energy Storage Materials 56 (2023): 50-61

2023
[31]

Battery production design using multi -output machine learning models

Turetskyy, Artem, et al. "Battery production design using multi -output machine learning models." Energy Storage Materials 38 (2021): 93-112

2021
[32]

Anthropogenic biases in chemical reaction data hinder exploratory inorganic synthesis

Jia, Xiwen, et al. "Anthropogenic biases in chemical reaction data hinder exploratory inorganic synthesis." Nature 573.7773 (2019): 251-255

2019
[33]

Comparison of the structural and electrochemical properties of layered Li [NixCoyMnz] O2 (x= 1/3, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8 and 0.85) cathode material for lithium-ion batteries

Noh, Hyung-Joo, et al. "Comparison of the structural and electrochemical properties of layered Li [NixCoyMnz] O2 (x= 1/3, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8 and 0.85) cathode material for lithium-ion batteries." Journal of power sources 233 (2013): 121-130

2013
[34]

Heuristic solution for achieving long -term cycle stability for Ni -rich layered cathodes at full depth of discharge

Kim, Un -Hyuck, et al. "Heuristic solution for achieving long -term cycle stability for Ni -rich layered cathodes at full depth of discharge." Nature Energy 5.11 (2020): 860-869

2020
[35]

A review on cathode materials for advanced lithium ion batteries: microstructure designs and performance regulations

Chen, Zhangxian, Weixin Zhang, and Zeheng Yang. "A review on cathode materials for advanced lithium ion batteries: microstructure designs and performance regulations." Nanotechnology 31.1 (2019): 012001

2019
[36]

Impacts of variations in manufacturing parameters on performance of lithium-ion-batteries

Lenze, Georg, et al. "Impacts of variations in manufacturing parameters on performance of lithium-ion-batteries." Journal of The Electrochemical Society 165.2 (2018): A314

2018
[37]

Optimizing the Microstructure and Processing Parameters for Lithium‐Ion Battery Cathodes: A Use Case Scenario with a Digital Manufacturing Platform

Karaki, Hassan, et al. "Optimizing the Microstructure and Processing Parameters for Lithium‐Ion Battery Cathodes: A Use Case Scenario with a Digital Manufacturing Platform." Energy Technology 11.5 (2023): 2201032

2023
[38]

Unraveling and regulating superstructure domain dispersion in lithium - rich layered oxide cathodes for high stability and reversibility

Choi, Geunho, et al. "Unraveling and regulating superstructure domain dispersion in lithium - rich layered oxide cathodes for high stability and reversibility." Energy & Environmental Science 17.13 (2024): 4634-4645

2024
[39]

Insight gained from using machine learning techniques to predict the discharge capacities of doped spinel cathode materials for lithium ‐ion batteries applications

Wang, Guanyu, et al. "Insight gained from using machine learning techniques to predict the discharge capacities of doped spinel cathode materials for lithium ‐ion batteries applications." Energy Technology 9.5 (2021): 2100053

2021
[40]

Capacity prediction method of lithium -ion battery in production process based on eXtreme Gradient Boosting

Liu, Zhengyu, Rui Xu, and Hao Wang. "Capacity prediction method of lithium -ion battery in production process based on eXtreme Gradient Boosting." Ionics 31.2 (2025): 1759-1777

2025
[41]

State of health prediction for lithium-ion battery using a gradient boosting-based data-driven method

Qin, Pengliang, Linhui Zhao, and Zhiyuan Liu. "State of health prediction for lithium-ion battery using a gradient boosting-based data-driven method." Journal of Energy Storage 47 (2022): 103644

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

World Energy Outlook Special Report Batteries and Secure Energy Transitions

work page

[2] [2]

Unravelling supply chain complexity in maintenance operations of battery production

Bokrantz, Jon, et al. "Unravelling supply chain complexity in maintenance operations of battery production." Production Planning & Control (2024): 1-22

work page 2024

[3] [3]

High-capacity oxide cathode beyond 300 mAh/g: focus review

Jiao, Sichen, et al. "High-capacity oxide cathode beyond 300 mAh/g: focus review." ACS Energy Letters 8.7 (2023): 3025-3037

work page 2023

[4] [4]

Opportunities and challenges of lithium ion batteries in automotive applications

Masias, Alvaro, James Marcicki, and William A. Paxton. "Opportunities and challenges of lithium ion batteries in automotive applications." ACS energy letters 6.2 (2021): 621-630

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Nano-rods in Ni-rich layered cathodes for practical batteries

Park, Geon-Tae, et al. "Nano-rods in Ni-rich layered cathodes for practical batteries." Chemical Society Reviews (2024)

work page 2024

[6] [6]

Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2023 concerning batteries and waste batteries, amending Directive 2008/98/EC and Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and repealing Directive 2006/66/EC (Text with EEA relevance)

work page 2023

[7] [7]

Inflation Reduction Act of 2022

work page 2022

[8] [8]

Assessing the feasibility of the Inflation Reduction Act’s EV critical mineral targets

Trost, Jenna N., and Jennifer B. Dunn. "Assessing the feasibility of the Inflation Reduction Act’s EV critical mineral targets." Nature sustainability 6.6 (2023): 639-643

work page 2023