Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 20 references

Local coordination and migration-network topology shape Li-ion transport and delithiation in the low-energy $\varepsilon$-LiMnO$_2$ polymorph

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper demonstrates that the spatial connectivity of 0-TM tetrahedral intermediates, not merely their abundance, determines lithium migration dimensionality and delithiation voltage in ε-LiMnO2.

desk verdict Solid geometric insight—identical n-TM fractions don't determine connectivity—but the 'quasi-1D' label is overreaching given that the only computed transverse hop is 0.99 eV versus a BVSE 2D/3D threshold of 2.031 eV. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08000 v1 pith:SUWHUEY3 submitted 2026-08-08 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Fukuan Wang , Busheng Wang , Yong Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords Li-ionbatteriesLiMnO2polymorphs0-TMtetrahedralsitesmigration-networkdimensionalitybond-valencesiteenergyquasi-one-dimensionaldiffusiondelithiationvoltageDFT+U
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

This paper establishes that a material's lithium-conduction character is set by how favorable local tetrahedral environments are wired together, not just by how many of them exist. Focusing on the low-energy ε-LiMnO2 polymorph, the authors show that although ε-LiMnO2 and the lithiated-spinel phase Li2Mn2O4 have identical fractions of O4 tetrahedral-site types (12.5% 0-TM, 75% 2-TM, 12.5% 4-TM), their low-energy lithium migration networks are topologically different: the ε phase conducts along quasi-one-dimensional chains, while the spinel conducts in three dimensions. They support this with bond-valence migration maps, climbing-image nudged elastic band barriers (0.35–0.36 eV for the ε-phase 0-TM hops versus 0.41–0.53 eV in spinel), and ab initio molecular dynamics that gives a 0.32 eV apparent activation energy and direction-resolved displacements favoring the c axis. This matters because the widely used first-shell n-TM classification, which counts face-sharing transition-metal neighbors around a tetrahedral intermediate, is the standard heuristic for screening cathode materials; the paper shows it is incomplete. Correctly predicting transport and voltage behavior in manganese-rich, cobalt-free cathodes requires adding higher-shell coordination and tetrahedral connectivity to the picture.

What carries the argument

The central object is the O4 tetrahedral intermediate labeled by its n-TM count, the number of face-sharing Mn neighbors, together with the spatial graph of 0-TM tetrahedra that forms when these intermediates are connected through shared faces. The paper uses bond-valence site-energy and bond-valence pathway analysis to map the low-energy lithium network and assign dimensionality, then climbing-image nudged elastic band calculations to get quantitative single-vacancy barriers, and ab initio molecular dynamics with direction-resolved mean-squared displacements to test the predicted anisotropy at finite temperature. The key comparison is between ε-LiMnO2 and the lithiated spinel, which share the same tetrahedral-type fractions but differ in the connectivity of 0-TM sites and in the composition of the next-nearest corner-sharing octahedral shell (eight MnO6 plus four LiO6 in ε versus twelve MnO6 in spinel).

What would settle it

Compute or measure the transverse (in-plane) migration barriers directly: CI-NEB on the candidate 2-TM transverse hop, or anisotropic tracer diffusion on oriented samples, would settle it. A transverse barrier below about 0.35 eV, or comparable in-plane diffusivity, would contradict the quasi-one-dimensional assignment; the paper's own AIMD shows appreciable but smaller a/b motion, so the decisive test is quantitative comparison of the transverse jump barrier.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in ε-LiMnO2 the 0-TM tetrahedral motifs—the sites where lithium can hop with low Li–Mn repulsion—assemble into quasi-one-dimensional chains along the crystallographic c direction, whereas the same motifs in the lithiated-spinel polymorph form a three-dimensional percolating network. Consequently, identical local n-TM statistics do not determine long-range transport dimensionality. The paper further claims that the ε-phase 0-TM hops have lower barriers (0.35 and 0.36 eV) than the spinel's 0-TM hops (0.41 and 0.53 eV), correlating with a lower Mn density in the next-nearest corner-sharing octahedral shell, and that during delithiation the edge-sharing arrangement of 0-TM tetrahedra in ε-Li0.5MnO2 leads to short Li–Li distances (2.150 Å), keeping lithium in off-center octahedral positions and producing a three-stage voltage profile (3.40, 4.08, and 4.50 V) instead of the spinel's two-plateau behavior.

Load-bearing premise

The whole quasi-one-dimensional picture rests on the bond-valence energy maps being a trustworthy stand-in for the actual lithium migration barriers: if the transverse paths that the maps place above 2 eV actually have true barriers comparable to or lower than the 0.35 eV chain hops, then ε-LiMnO2 would support meaningful three-dimensional transport despite being labeled quasi-1D.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The standard 0-TM descriptor cannot be used alone to rank cathode materials; a material with many favorable local sites may still be a poor long-range conductor if those sites do not percolate.
  • ε-LiMnO2, despite its low migration barriers, is predicted to have limited rate capability because its quasi-one-dimensional chains are susceptible to local blocking; the practical benefit of the low barrier may not be realized without connectivity.
  • During delithiation, the same connectivity effect shifts lithium-site preferences: ε-LiMnO2 keeps Li off-center in octahedra at Li0.5MnO2 while the spinel stabilizes tetrahedral Li, and the voltage steps reflect this difference.
  • Screening of rocksalt-derived cathodes should include connectivity descriptors such as dimensionality thresholds and chain length, not just tetrahedral-site statistics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not directly measure transverse barriers, but if a future CI-NEB calculation found an in-plane hop below about 0.35 eV, the quasi-1D label would need to be revised to accommodate a second transport channel.
  • The connectivity hierarchy should transfer to other rocksalt-derived cathodes: a high-throughput screen that computed migration-network dimensionality thresholds for many cation orderings could rank candidate materials by predicted rate capability more faithfully than 0-TM fractions alone.
  • The edge-sharing 0-TM geometry that raises Li–Li repulsion in ε-LiMnO2 may be a general sign that tetrahedral Li will be destabilized; using shortest Li–Li distance among 0-TM sites as a screening descriptor could help avoid voltage surprises.
  • The next-nearest corner-sharing shell result suggests that substituting cations in the octahedral shell around a 0-TM site could tune migration barriers within the same n-TM class, an avenue the authors mention but do not explore computationally.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript uses bond-valence site-energy (BVSE) and bond-valence pathway analysis (BVPA) in combination with DFT+U calculations to compare Li-ion migration topology in four LiMnO2 polymorphs, focusing on the recently predicted ε-LiMnO2 phase. The authors report that ε-LiMnO2 and the lithiated spinel have identical fractions of 0-TM, 2-TM, and 4-TM tetrahedral sites, yet the ε phase exhibits quasi-one-dimensional migration channels while the spinel is three-dimensional. CI-NEB gives 0.35–0.36 eV barriers for two 0-TM tetrahedral-site hops in ε and 0.41–0.53 eV for 0-TM hops in spinel; a 2-TM oxygen-dumbbell hop in ε has a 0.99 eV barrier. AIMD yields an apparent activation energy of 0.32 eV and shows preferential Li motion along c. Delithiation calculations connect the 0-TM connectivity to Li-site evolution and voltage steps. The main claim is that first-shell n-TM statistics alone do not determine long-range transport dimensionality.

Significance. If the quasi-one-dimensional classification is correct, the paper makes a conceptually useful point: identical local coordination statistics do not guarantee identical transport network dimensionality, and it provides a concrete example with a new polymorph. The work also provides a consistent set of migration barriers and an AIMD estimate that are internally consistent. However, the central claim currently rests on BVSE percolation thresholds rather than on explicit first-principles inter-chain migration barriers, and the AIMD anisotropy is modest; these weaknesses limit the strength of the conclusion as it stands.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Table 1; §3.3, Fig. 4] The quasi-1D assignment for ε-LiMnO2 is based on the BVPA threshold of 2.031 eV for 2D/3D connectivity, but the only first-principles transverse hop reported (2-TM ODH, 0.99 eV) lies almost 1 eV below that threshold. Since CI-NEB includes lattice relaxation and the ODH trajectory can bypass the tetrahedral center, the true inter-chain percolation barrier may be far lower than the BVSE estimate. The authors should either compute an explicit CI-NEB barrier for a hop that connects neighboring 0-TM chains, or otherwise validate the BVSE threshold for this material, before concluding that ε-LiMnO2 is quasi-one-dimensional.
  2. [§3.3, Fig. 6(d)] The direction-resolved MSD at 2000 K shows only a factor of ~2.3 anisotropy (c ≈ 5.2 Ų vs a ≈ 2.3 and b ≈ 1.9 Ų). Such a ratio can also arise in a 2D or 3D percolating network with anisotropic barrier prefactors or bottleneck energies, so this observation alone does not establish quasi-one-dimensional transport. Please provide a quantitative percolation analysis of the AIMD trajectories (e.g., counts of hop events along each direction) or temper the claim accordingly.
  3. [§2 (Computational methods), §3.2] The BVPA connectivity thresholds in Table 1 depend on the energy cutoff of 2.5 eV, which is stated to be referenced to the lowest BVSE site. The conclusion that ε is quasi-1D and spinel is 3D is sensitive to this choice and to the BVSE parameters. Please include a sensitivity analysis (e.g., thresholds at 2.0 and 3.0 eV) and clarify whether the isosurface level of -1 used in Fig. 3(a) is an absolute or relative value; otherwise the visual comparison among the four polymorphs may be misleading.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§1 (Abstract and Introduction)] The abstract and introduction state that ε-LiMnO2 is a 'recently reported' polymorph; the cited work (Ref. 28) is a computational prediction, so please use 'predicted' rather than 'reported' to avoid implying experimental synthesis.
  2. [§2] The sentence 'the lowest-energy configuration was used subsequently' refers to Fig. S1, but the energy differences among the tested magnetic configurations are not given in the main text; please provide them (or at least a reference to the ESI table).
  3. [§3.3] The phrase 'the low one-dimensional BVPA connectivity threshold' is awkward; consider 'the low 1D connectivity threshold'.
  4. [Fig. 6] The production time of 20 ps per temperature is short for a quantitative Arrhenius analysis; please state whether longer simulations or multiple independent runs were used to estimate statistical errors.
  5. [§3.4] When comparing calculated voltages to the experimental spinel plateaus, please clarify the normalization per Mn and specify the Li concentration ranges in the figure caption.
  6. [Table 2] The sources for the ortho and layered barriers are given as Refs. 45, 66, 67; please ensure the barrier values are consistent with those references and note the functional/method used there.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the BVSE/BVPA topology maps, CI-NEB barriers, and AIMD activation energy are independent outputs of the same structural model, not inputs used to set one another.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The migration-network dimensionalities in Table 1 and Fig. 3 are direct geometric outputs of the BVSE/BVPA analysis on the relaxed crystal structures; the n-TM tetrahedral fractions are separately tabulated from the same structures, and the paper's central contrast between epsilon and spinel is that these two descriptors do not coincide, which is an empirical finding rather than a definitional equivalence. The CI-NEB barriers (0.35, 0.36, and 0.99 eV for epsilon; 0.41 and 0.53 eV for spinel) are first-principles outputs calculated independently of the BVSE connectivity thresholds, and no barrier value is fitted to reproduce the BVSE dimensionality. The AIMD activation energy of 0.32 eV is extracted from a separate Arrhenius fit of diffusion coefficients and is compared with, not used as an input to, the CI-NEB barriers. The U_eff value of 3.9 eV is inherited from prior literature rather than tuned to the conclusions, and the structural stability checks (phonons, 500 K AIMD, elastic constants) are independent. The only notable weakness is that the quasi-one-dimensional assignment relies on the BVSE proxy for transverse connectivity, and the 0.99 eV 2-TM ODH barrier lies below the 2.031 eV BVPA 2D threshold; this is a correctness or validation concern about the proxy, not circular reasoning, because the BVSE thresholds are not derived from the conclusion and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present: the epsilon structure is taken from Kam et al. as an external reference, and no uniqueness theorem from the present authors is invoked to force the dimensionality assignment.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation relies on standard DFT and bond-valence methods with one Hubbard U parameter and one connectivity cutoff chosen from prior practice. No new physical entities are postulated. The main unrecognized inputs are the trustworthiness of BVSE for percolation and the completeness of the sampled configurational space.

free parameters (2)
  • U_eff for Mn 3d = 3.9 eV
    Hubbard U parameter adopted from prior calibration (Wang et al., 2006). It is not fitted in this paper, but it is a model parameter that affects Mn3d localization, migration barriers, and voltages.
  • BVSE connectivity energy cutoff = 2.5 eV
    Hand-chosen threshold referenced to the lowest BVSE site, used to define percolating networks in BVPA. This directly determines whether 2D or 3D networks are identified, especially for the orthorhombic and layered phases.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption DFT+U with PBEsol and U_eff=3.9 eV accurately describes Mn3+ Jahn-Teller distortions and Li migration barriers.
    Invoked throughout Sections 2 and 3; all energy barriers, voltages, and stability conclusions depend on this electronic-structure choice.
  • domain assumption BVSE/BVPA energy landscapes are a reliable proxy for the Li migration free-energy surface and percolation topology.
    Invoked in Section 3.2, Table 1, and Fig. 3 to classify the migration networks as quasi-1D, 2D, or 3D.
  • domain assumption The 20 ps AIMD trajectories at 1000-2000 K are long enough to extract diffusion coefficients and an Arrhenius activation energy.
    Invoked in Section 3.3; the apparent activation energy of 0.32 eV is fitted from only three diffusion coefficients (1000, 1500, 2000 K).
  • domain assumption The ten lowest-electrostatic Li/vacancy configurations per composition plus selected tetrahedral configurations are representative of the true convex hull.
    Invoked in Section 3.4; the convex hull and voltage steps could change if additional low-energy orderings were missed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Local coordination and migration-network topology shape Li-ion transport and delithiation in the low-energy $\varepsilon$-LiMnO$_2$ polymorph." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SUWHUEY3

@misc{pith2026260808000,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Local coordination and migration-network topology shape Li-ion transport and delithiation in the low-energy $\varepsilon$-LiMnO$_2$ polymorph},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SUWHUEY3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08000}
}
read the original abstract

In rocksalt-derived oxide cathodes, the local Li-migration environment around an O4 tetrahedral intermediate is commonly classified by the number of face-sharing transition-metal (TM) neighbors. In LiMnO2, the TM species is Mn, and 0-TM denotes the absence of face-sharing Mn neighbors. However, migration and delithiation may also depend on higher-shell coordination and tetrahedral connectivity. Using the recently reported low-energy epsilon-LiMnO2 polymorph as a model, we examine these factors through bond-valence site-energy and bond-valence pathway analyses combined with first-principles calculations. The resulting migration maps and tetrahedral statistics reveal distinct topologies and dimensionalities across four LiMnO2 polymorphs. Although the epsilon phase and the lithiated-spinel phase Li2Mn2O4 (hereafter spinel) have identical tetrahedral-type fractions, their 0-TM motifs form quasi-one-dimensional chains and a three-dimensional network, respectively. Climbing-image nudged elastic band calculations further distinguish the two structures: epsilon-phase barriers are 0.35-0.36 eV, compared with 0.41-0.53 eV in spinel, a difference that may be associated with distinct next-nearest corner-sharing shells. Ab initio molecular dynamics yields an apparent activation energy of 0.32 eV, while direction-resolved mean-squared displacements show preferential Li migration along c, supporting low-barrier quasi-one-dimensional diffusion. Delithiation calculations show that differences in 0-TM connectivity and Li-Li separation between the epsilon phase and spinel are associated with Li-site evolution and calculated voltage steps, suggesting that motif connectivity may influence voltage response. These results link the local environments and spatial connectivity of 0-TM motifs to Li migration and delithiation, providing insights into the design of metastable cathode structures.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Local coordination and migration-network topology shape Li-ion transport and delithiation in the low-energy $\varepsilon$-LiMnO$_2$ polymorph

    - R X U Q D O 1 D P H Local coordination and migration-network topology shape Li-ion transport and delithiation in the low-energy ε-LiMnO 2 polymorph† Fukuan Wang, a Busheng Wang, a and Yong Liu ∗a In rocksalt-derived oxide cathodes, the local Li-migration environment around an O4 tetrahedral in- termediate is commonly classified by the number of face-sha...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    28 Forε-LiMnO 2, several antiferro- magnetic and ferromagnetic configurations were tested, and the lowest-energy configuration was used subsequently (Fig. S1†). Dynamical stability was evaluated by finite-displacement phonon calculations using Phonopy . 46–48 Thermal stability was examined by a 10 ps NVT AIMD simulation at 500 K using a 128-atom supercell...

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    At 750 K, the Li MSD remains relatively small, and sustained long-range diffusion is not observed within the limited simulation time of 20 ps. As the temperature increases to 1000, 1500, and 2000 K, the MSD grows progressively faster, indicat- ing that elevated temperatures increase the probability of Li ions overcoming local migration barriers and underg...

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    Figure 6(c) further shows the sampled instantaneous Li posi- tions from the 2000 K AIMD trajectory

    This value is close to the CI-NEB barriers of 0.35 and 0.36 eV for the two 0-TM TSH pathways, indicating good consistency be- tween theLi + migration energy scales obtained from the two methods. Figure 6(c) further shows the sampled instantaneous Li posi- tions from the 2000 K AIMD trajectory . Rather than being uni- formly distributed throughout the crys...

    work page 2000

  5. [5]

    Investissements d’Avenir

    More broadly , the analytical frame- work developed here, which integrates localn-TM environments, higher-shell coordination, and global network topology , can be extended to other rocksalt-derived cathodes to clarify how differ- ent structural levels govern ionic migration and electrochemical evolution and to test the generality of this local-to-global p...

    work page 2018

  6. [17]

    61 S. P. Ong, L. Wang, B. Kang and G. Ceder,Chem. Mater ., 2008, 20, 1798–1807. 62 A. Urban, D.-H. Seo and G. Ceder,Npj Comput. Mater ., 2016, 2, 16002. 63 M. K. Aydinol, A. F. Kohan, G. Ceder, K. Cho and J. Joannopoulos,Phys. Rev. B, 1997,56, 1354–1365. 64 A. Van Der Ven,Electrochem. Solid-State Lett., 1999,3,

    work page 2008

  7. [18]

    Einstein,Ann

    58 A. Einstein,Ann. Phys., 1905,322, 549–560. 59 S. Arrhenius,Z. Für Phys. Chem., 1889,4U, 226–248. 60 K. Okhotnikov, T. Charpentier and S. Cadars,J. Cheminfor- matics, 2016,8,

    work page 1905

  8. [301]

    Van Der Ven and G

    65 A. Van Der Ven and G. Ceder,J. Power Sources, 2001,97–98, 529–531. 66 K. Hoang,Phys. Rev. Appl., 2015,3, 024013. 67 F. Kong, R. C. Longo, M.-S. Park, J. Yoon, D.-H. Yeon, J.-H. Park, W.-H. Wang, S. Kc, S.-G. Doo and K. Cho,J. Mater . Chem. A, 2015,3, 8489–8500. 68 M. M. Thackeray , P. J. Johnson, L. A. de Picciotto, P. G. Bruce and J. B. Goodenough,Mat...

    work page 2001

Show all 20 references
  1. [465]

    10 J. Wang, J. Ma, Z. Zhuang, Z. Liang, K. Jia, G. Ji, G. Zhou and H.-M. Cheng,Chem. Rev., 2024,124, 2839–2887. 11 A. Manthiram,Nat. Commun., 2020,11,

    2024

  2. [603]

    Kresse and J

    35 G. Kresse and J. Furthmüller,Comput. Mater . Sci., 1996,6, 15–50. 36 G. Kresse and J. Furthmüller,Phys. Rev. B, 1996,54, 11169– 11186. 37 P. E. Blöchl,Phys. Rev. B,

    1996

  3. [1276]

    Chen and S

    53 H. Chen and S. Adams,IUCrJ, 2017,4, 614–625. 54 H. Chen, L. L. Wong and S. Adams,Acta Crystallogr . Sect. B Struct. Sci. Cryst. Eng. Mater .,

    2017

  4. [1550]

    12 B. E. Murdock, K. E. Toghill and N. Tapia-Ruiz,Adv. Energy Mater ., 2021,11, 2102028. 13 W. Li, E. M. Erickson and A. Manthiram,Nat. Energy, 2020, 5, 26–34. 14 Y. Zheng, J. Li, Y. Liu, L. Feng, W. Liu, L. Lin, Y. Wang, H. Peng, 8 | 1–9 + P V S O B M / B N F < Z F B S > < W ...

    2021

  5. [1614]

    Costa, J

    9 C. Costa, J. Barbosa, R. Gonçalves, H. Castro, F. D. Campo and S. Lanceros-Méndez,Energy Storage Mater ., 2021,37, 433–

    2021

  6. [1984]

    69 C. A. Marianetti, D. Morgan and G. Ceder,Phys. Rev. B, 2001, 63, 224304. + P V S O B M / B N F < Z F B S > < W P M > 1–9 | 9

    2001

  7. [1994]

    Kresse and D

    38 G. Kresse and D. Joubert,Phys. Rev. B, 1999,59, 1758–1775. 39 J. P. Perdew, K. Burke and M. Ernzerhof,Phys. Rev. Lett., 1996, 77, 3865–3868. 40 J. P. Perdew, A. Ruzsinszky , G. I. Csonka, O. A. Vydrov, G. E. Scuseria, L. A. Constantin, X. Zhou and K. Burke,Phys. Rev. Lett.,...

    1999

  8. [1996]

    47 A. Togo,J. Phys. Soc. Jpn., 2023,92, 012001. 48 A. Togo, L. Chaput, T. Tadano and I. Tanaka,J. Phys. Condens. Matter, 2023,35, 353001. 49 S. Nosé,J. Chem. Phys., 1984,81, 511–519. 50 W. G. Hoover,Phys. Rev. A, 1985,31, 1695–1697. 51 F. Mouhat and F.-X. Coudert,Phys. Rev. B,...

    2023

  9. [2019]

    55 L. L. Wong, K. C. Phuah, R. Dai, H. Chen, W. S. Chew and S. Adams,Chem. Mater ., 2021,33, 625–641. 56 G. Henkelman, B. P. Uberuaga and H. Jónsson,J. Chem. Phys., 2000,113, 9901–9904. 57 X. He, Y. Zhu, A. Epstein and Y. Mo,Npj Comput. Mater ., 2018, 4,

    2021

  10. [2499]

    Turcheniuk, D

    3 K. Turcheniuk, D. Bondarev, V. Singhal and G. Yushin,Nature, 2018,559, 467–470. 4 Y. Huang and J. Li,Adv. Energy Mater ., 2022,12, 2202197. 5 J. Li, J. Fleetwood, W. B. Hawley and W. Kays,Chem. Rev., 2022,122, 903–956. 6 J. Xiao, F. Shi, T. Glossmann, C. Burnett and Z. Liu,N...

    2018

  11. [3063]

    20 T. Liu, L. Yu, J. Liu, J. Lu, X. Bi, A. Dai, M. Li, M. Li, Z. Hu, L. Ma, D. Luo, J. Zheng, T. Wu, Y. Ren, J. Wen, F. Pan and K. Amine,Nat. Energy, 2021,6, 277–286. 21 H. Li, R. Fong, M. Woo, H. Ahmed, D.-H. Seo, R. Malik and J. Lee,Joule, 2022,6, 53–91. 22 G.-T. Park, N.-Y....

    2021

  12. [5192]

    42 S. L. Dudarev, G. A. Botton, S. Y. Savrasov, C. J. Humphreys and A. P. Sutton,Phys. Rev. B, 1998,57, 1505–1509. 43 F. Zhou, M. Cococcioni, C. A. Marianetti, D. Morgan and G. Ceder,Phys. Rev. B, 2004,70, 235121. 44 L. Wang, T. Maxisch and G. Ceder,Phys. Rev. B, 2006,73, 1951...

    1998

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.