Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 76 references

Ionic Interdiffusion at Cathode-Solid-Electrolyte Interface: A Machine Learning-Assisted Multiscale Investigation and Mitigation Strategies

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cobalt leaks into solid electrolyte, killing first-cycle capacity

desk verdict Solid multiscale study with a clean substitution-energy result, but the central interdiffusion claim rests on one LCO facet and the capacity curves are fit to experiments. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.11976 v1 pith:34L4UTMG submitted 2025-11-15 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Musawenkosi K. Ncube , Pallab Barai , Selva Chandrasekaran Selvaraj , Larry A. Curtiss , Anh T. Ngo , Venkat Srinivasan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords all-solid-statebatterycobaltinterdiffusionLiCoO2LGPSLNTOinterlayermachinelearningmoleculardynamicscontinuuminterphasemodelinterfacialdelamination
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

The paper tries to establish, with multiscale simulations, that the first-cycle capacity fade seen when the LiCoO2 (LCO) cathode meets the Li10GeP2S12 (LGPS) solid electrolyte is caused by ionic interdiffusion, especially cobalt diffusing into LGPS and forming a resistive interphase layer. It further tries to establish why a thin LiNb0.5Ta0.5O3 (LNTO) coating suppresses this diffusion: substituting Co for Li in LNTO costs 0.144 eV, while the same substitution in LGPS is favorable at -1.109 eV, because the rigid Nb/Ta5+ oxide framework resists charge imbalance. The paper also argues that LNTO's mechanical stiffness creates a different failure mode, interfacial delamination, which limits its long-term protective effect. If true, this gives a mechanistic, chemistry-based explanation for both the degradation of untreated LCO|LGPS interfaces and the incomplete protection offered by LNTO coatings.

What carries the argument

The argument hinges on two quantitative comparisons. First, the Li↔Co substitution energy: -1.109 eV in LGPS versus +0.144 eV in LNTO, computed from ab initio calculations. Second, the interdiffusion coefficients extracted from machine-learning molecular dynamics (MLMD) using a deep neural network potential trained on AIMD data, which feed a continuum model of interphase growth with stress-dependent diffusion. The continuum model also captures interfacial delamination driven by mechanical mismatch.

What would settle it

Measure elemental depth profiles across an LCO|LGPS interface after a single cycle using cross-sectional TEM-EDS: if no cobalt is detected in the LGPS side and the interphase thickness is far below 1 µm, the interdiffusion-driven fade claim would be contradicted. Alternatively, compute the Li↔Co substitution energy in LGPS with different Hubbard U values for Co; if it turns positive, the thermodynamic driver disappears.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the (010)LCO|(001)LGPS interface permits interdiffusion of Co and O within nanoseconds, growing a passivating interphase that, at continuum scale, exceeds 1 µm within 24 hours and explains the dramatic first-cycle capacity loss. The energetic driver is the Li↔Co substitution energy: favorable in LGPS (-1.109 eV) because its Ge/P sulfide framework is redox-flexible, and unfavorable in LNTO (0.144 eV) because of the rigid, charge-stabilizing Nb5+/Ta5+–O bonds. Therefore LNTO blocks interdiffusion, but its high stiffness produces tensile interfacial stresses that, modeled with 30% delamination, reproduce the observed voltage and capacity losses in LNTO-coated cells. Th

Load-bearing premise

The (010)LCO|(001)LGPS interface is treated as representative of all LCO|LGPS contacts, even though the paper finds no significant cobalt interdiffusion at the (110) and (104) LCO interfaces.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Co interdiffusion is the first-cycle killer, then preventing cation mixing at the cathode–electrolyte contact is more urgent than improving bulk ionic conductivity.
  • LNTO-type coatings that block interdiffusion will still fail mechanically; interlayer design must target stiffness comparable to LGPS while maintaining a rigid redox framework.
  • The power-law interphase growth with exponent 0.155 predicts that most of the resistive layer forms within the first few hours of contact, correlating with early-cycle capacity loss.
  • The negative substitution energy in LGPS provides a thermodynamic screening criterion: interlayer materials with positive Li↔Co substitution energy are candidates for blocking interdiffusion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper reports no significant Co interdiffusion at the (110) and (104) LCO interfaces, the degradation may be orientation-dependent; real cathodes with mixed facets could show slower fade than the (010)-dominated model predicts.
  • A testable extension: single-crystal LCO cathodes with controlled facet exposure should show different first-cycle capacity loss, directly mapping the orientation dependence.
  • The contrast between redox-flexible sulfide and rigid oxide frameworks suggests a broader design space: interlayers with mixed anion coordination might tune both substitution energy and mechanical compliance.
  • The delamination mechanism implies that LNTO-coated cells may improve if the coating is made thinner or gradient-compositioned to reduce interfacial stress, a consequence the paper leaves implicit.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper combines DFT/AIMD, machine-learned deep potentials, and continuum models to study ionic interdiffusion at LiCoO2 (LCO) | Li10GeP2S12 (LGPS) and LCO | LiNb0.5Ta0.5O3 (LNTO) interfaces. It reports that MLMD simulations show Co and O interdiffusion for the (010)LCO|(001)LGPS interface, leading to an interphase layer, whereas (110) and (104) LCO interfaces show no significant Co interdiffusion. Substitution-energy calculations give a negative Li↔Co substitution energy in LGPS (-1.109 eV) and a positive one in LNTO (0.144 eV), rationalizing LNTO as a blocking layer. A continuum model is used to extrapolate interphase growth to 150 hours and to compare discharge curves with experiments, attributing LCO|LGPS capacity fade to interdiffusion-induced passivation and LCO|LNTO|LGPS losses to delamination.

Significance. If the facet-specific atomistic result is representative of practical polycrystalline cathodes, the work provides a mechanistically grounded explanation for first-cycle fade in LCO|LGPS and a physically plausible rationale for LNTO coatings. Strengths include the DFT-based substitution energies, the low MLMD force errors for LCO|LGPS, and the explicit multiscale bridge from atomistic diffusion coefficients to continuum interphase growth. However, the central generalization rests on a single LCO orientation, the continuum 'prediction' of capacity fade is partly calibrated to the same experimental curves it is compared with, and the LCO|LNTO MLMD force errors are large enough to weaken the no-interdiffusion conclusion. These issues need to be addressed before the abstract-level claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Results, LCO|LGPS interface, Figure 6 and Table 2] The abstract claims that LCO|LGPS generally permits Co interdiffusion, but the MLMD results show significant Co interdiffusion only at (010)LCO|(001)LGPS; the text explicitly states there is no significant Co interdiffusion at (110)LCO|(001)LGPS and (104)LCO|(001)LGPS. The manuscript calls (010) 'the most stable interface' without presenting LCO surface energies or a Wulff construction. Since a real polycrystalline LCO particle may expose predominantly non-(010) facets, the representative character of the (010) result is unsupported. Please provide facet energetics/orientation statistics, or reframe the mechanism as orientation-specific.
  2. [Table 1, MLMD validation for LCO|LNTO] For LCO|LNTO, the DLP force MAE is 0.145 eV/Å and RMSE is 0.202 eV/Å, roughly two orders of magnitude worse than for LCO|LGPS. The conclusion that LNTO suppresses Co interdiffusion is based on the LCO|LNTO MLMD trajectories (Figure 8). With this force error, the absence of Co diffusion over 2 ns is not a reliable prediction. The authors should improve the potential, validate it specifically against Co migration barriers or exchange pathways at this interface, or substantially soften the 'no interdiffusion' claim.
  3. [Analyzing cell performance, Figure 9(c)] The 'dramatic capacity fade' for LCO|LGPS is obtained by assuming a 1 µm passivation layer, an inactive-LCO fraction of 0.6, and a 0.15 exchange-current density reduction; for LNTO, 30% delamination and a 0.2 reduction are introduced. These quantities are fitted so that the model matches the experimental discharge curves they are compared with. Therefore the model is demonstrating consistency with a calibrated scenario, not independently predicting first-cycle fade. Please separate fitted from predicted quantities and include a sensitivity analysis.
  4. [Table 2, diffusion coefficients and Eq. (5)] The interface diffusion coefficients are derived from a single MLMD trajectory (atom-resolved MSD, Figure 5) with no error bars or run-to-run statistics. The continuum interphase-growth curve (Eq. (5)) and the statement that a 1 µm interphase forms within 24 hours depend directly on these values. Given the orders-of-magnitude spread among species and the absence of uncertainty quantification, this is load-bearing. Please provide multiple independent trajectories or a bootstrap estimate and propagate the uncertainty to the interphase thickness and capacity-fade prediction.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Computational Methodology, DFT] Typo: 'LCO|LPGS' should be 'LCO|LGPS'. Also, the convergence statement 'less than ±10 meV/Å' appears to mix energy and force units; clarify.
  2. [Eq. (5)] Specify the units of the prefactor and time exponent; state whether thickness is in µm and t in hours.
  3. [Table 2] The experimental columns 'Expt1' and 'Expt2' lack explicit references; please cite the sources.
  4. [LCO|LNTO interface section] The Li↔Co substitution energies (-1.109 eV and 0.144 eV) are central to the chemistry claim, but the computational setup (supercell size, charged vs neutral defects, reference chemical potentials) is not described in the main text. Please provide details or a clear pointer to the SI.
  5. [Results, LCO|LGPS interface] The phrase 'no significant Co interdiffusion' for (110) and (104) interfaces is not supported by a quantitative metric. A figure with concentration profiles or MSD curves for those orientations would make the claim verifiable.
  6. [Figure 3] The statement 'our results show a variation of +/-0.1%' is not a standard accuracy metric. Report MAE/RMSE or R² values for the energy and force parity plots.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Capacity-fade 'prediction' is calibrated to the experimental curves via inactive-fraction and exchange-current factors; atomistic interdiffusion chemistry is independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Results and Discussion — Analyzing cell performance (Figure 9(c), LCO|LGPS comparison)]
    "In order to obtain good correlation with experimentally observed capacity, a 1 µm thick passivation layer is assumed within the LCO cathode where the fraction of inactive LCO is assumed to be around 0.6. ... Also, the reference exchange current density at the LCO|LGPS interface is decreased by a factor of 0.15 to demonstrate good correlation with the experimentally observed voltage values."

    The 'predicted' LCO|LGPS discharge curve and the associated dramatic first-cycle capacity fade are obtained by choosing the passivation-layer thickness (1 µm), inactive cathode fraction (0.6), and exchange-current reduction factor (0.15) so that the model matches the same experimental curve with which it is later compared. The agreement is therefore built in by construction rather than being an independent prediction of capacity fade.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Results and Discussion — Analyzing cell performance (Figure 9(c), LCO|LNTO|LGPS comparison)]
    "In the present analysis, good correlation with experiments is obtained by introducing 30% interfacial delamination between LCO and LNTO, which is assumed to be randomly distributed along the LCO|SE interface. ... Lower ionic conductivity of LNTO (1 × 10−4 S m⁄ ) can also contribute to an increase in the charge transfer resistance between LCO and SE, which is incorporated into the model by decreasing the reference exchange current density by a factor of 0.2."

    The LNTO performance curve is made to agree with experiments by inserting two additional degradation/transport factors—30% assumed delamination and a 0.2 exchange-current-density reduction—whose values are selected to reproduce the experimental data. Thus the conclusion that LNTO induces delamination-limited performance is not derived independently; it is encoded as a fitted assumption in the same comparison.

full rationale

The atomistic interdiffusion chemistry is not circular. The ML potential is trained on AIMD/DFT energies and forces (reported as small MAE/RMSE in Table 1), and the substitution energies (-1.109 eV in LGPS vs +0.144 eV in LNTO) are independent DFT quantities. Feeding MSD-derived diffusion coefficients into the 1D interphase-growth model is a legitimate parameter transfer. The circularity is confined to the continuum performance 'predictions' in Fig. 9(c). For LCO|LGPS, the model's capacity fade is obtained by assuming a 1 µm passivation layer, an inactive fraction of 0.6, and an exchange-current factor of 0.15 chosen to reproduce the same experimental red circles used for comparison. For LCO|LNTO|LGPS, the fit uses 30% assumed delamination and a 0.2 exchange-current factor. These are fitted inputs, not parameter-free predictions, so the apparent quantitative agreement is partly a reconstruction of the target data. The self-citations to prior MLMD (Ref. 29) and continuum-model (Ref. 43) methods are methodological and not load-bearing as a uniqueness claim. The orientation dependence—Co interdiffusion seen only for (010)LCO|(001)LGPS while the (110) and (104) interfaces show no significant Co interdiffusion—is an external-validity/representativeness concern rather than a circularity under the specified rubric.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the transferability of a DFT-trained deep potential, the representativeness of a single LCO surface orientation, and a continuum model whose performance predictions require several fitted parameters. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Inactive-LCO fraction in passivation layer = 0.6
    Assumed to match experimental capacity; controls loss of active sites and tortuosity in the 2D cell model.
  • Exchange current density reduction factor (LCO|LGPS) = 0.15
    Decreased by factor 0.15 to demonstrate good correlation with experimental voltage curves.
  • Exchange current density reduction factor (LCO|LNTO|LGPS) = 0.2
    Attributed to lower LNTO ionic conductivity (1e-4 S/m); tuned to match experiments.
  • Interfacial delamination fraction (LCO|LNTO) = 30%
    Randomly distributed 30% delamination assumed to match experimental discharge curve for LNTO-coated LCO.
  • Passivation layer thickness in cell model = 1 µm
    Predicted by continuum interdiffusion model (more than 1 µm in 24 h) but then assumed as input to the 2D cell model; its value is consistent with the quantitative fit.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption GGA-PBE+U (U_Co=5.9 eV) accurately describes the thermodynamics and dynamics of LCO, LGPS, and LNTO interfaces.
    Used throughout DFT, AIMD, and DLP training; standard for these oxides but not validated against hybrid functionals or experiment here.
  • domain assumption The DeepMD potential trained on ~300-atom AIMD trajectories transfers to >6000-atom interfaces at multi-ns timescales.
    DLP energy/force errors are reported, but transferability to unseen interfacial configurations is assumed.
  • domain assumption Diffusion coefficients extracted from ~2-3.6 ns MLMD runs are representative of long-time interdiffusion kinetics.
    Used to parameterize continuum model; finite-size and sampling-time effects are not quantified.
  • domain assumption Interdiffusion-induced local volume increase generates compressive stress that reduces diffusivity, producing damped interphase growth.
    Continuum model assumption; cited to prior studies (refs 61-63) but not directly measured here.
  • domain assumption Lithium concentration in the interphase is set by charge neutrality given the other species' concentrations.
    Used to close species mass balances in the continuum model.
  • domain assumption The 1D/2D continuum equations and phase-field thresholds (0.05/0.95) correctly identify LCO, interphase, and LGPS domains.
    The interphase is a phenomenological region; threshold values are modeling choices.
  • ad hoc to paper For LNTO-coated cells, interfacial delamination (not interdiffusion) is the dominant degradation mechanism in the continuum model.
    Delamination fraction is fitted to experimental capacity, not independently measured or predicted.
  • domain assumption No current flows during atomistic interdiffusion; electrochemical driving forces are neglected in the MLMD.
    The atomistic simulations are NVT without applied potential; coupling to electrochemical conditions is ignored.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ionic Interdiffusion at Cathode-Solid-Electrolyte Interface: A Machine Learning-Assisted Multiscale Investigation and Mitigation Strategies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/34L4UTMG

@misc{pith2026251111976,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ionic Interdiffusion at Cathode-Solid-Electrolyte Interface: A Machine Learning-Assisted Multiscale Investigation and Mitigation Strategies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/34L4UTMG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.11976}
}
read the original abstract

Future lithium-based batteries are expected to use solid electrolytes to achieve higher energy density and fast charge capabilities. The majority of solid electrolytes are thermodynamically unstable against layered oxide cathodes. Here, the stability of LiCoO2 (LCO) cathode with Li10GeP2S12 (LGPS) solid electrolyte is investigated using ab initio molecular dynamics (AIMD) and machine learning molecular dynamics (MLMD). The propensity of ionic interdiffusion, formation of a passivation layer, and corresponding decay in cell performance is addressed using a continuum model. The large-scale MLMD simulations confirm that the LCO|LGPS interface permits interdiffusion of Co and other ionic species, leading to the formation and growth of a resistive interphase and dramatic capacity fade even in the first cycle. We then examine the literature evidence that incorporating a thin layer of LiNb0.5Ta0.5O3 (LNTO) between LCO and LGPS prevents the interdiffusion of ions. Atomistic simulations suggest that the substitution of Li in LNTO with Co is not thermodynamically favorable, which helps to minimize the ionic interdiffusion process. The stable Nb/Ta5+ states form a rigid metal-oxide framework, which consequently also prevents the substitution of Nb/Ta. However, continuum level analysis suggests that due to the higher mechanical stiffness of LNTO, interfacial delamination between the LCO and LNTO is possible, which can minimize the effectiveness of the protective layer. This paper suggests the need for the development of novel interlayers that balance low interdiffusion with low stiffness.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    & Zeier, W

    Janek, J. & Zeier, W. G. A solid future for battery development. Nat Energy 1, 16141 (2016)

    2016

  2. [2]

    & Zeier, W

    Janek, J. & Zeier, W. G. Challenges in speeding up solid-state battery development. Nat Energy 8, 230–240 (2023)

    2023

  3. [3]

    S., Liang, W.-W

    Chan, K. S., Liang, W.-W. & Chan, C. K. First-Principles Studies of the Lithiation and Delithiation Paths in Si Anodes in Li-Ion Batteries. J. Phys. Chem. C 123, 22775–22786 (2019)

    2019

  4. [4]

    & Dou, S

    Shu, C., Wang, J., Long, J., Liu, H. & Dou, S. Understanding the Reaction Chemistry during Charging in Aprotic Lithium–Oxygen Batteries: Existing Problems and Solutions. Advanced Materials 31, 1804587 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    Wang, C.-W. et al. Engineering the interface between LiCoO 2 and Li 10 GeP 2 S 12 solid electrolytes with an ultrathin Li 2 CoTi 3 O 8 interlayer to boost the performance of all-solid-state batteries. Energy Environ. Sci. 14, 437–450 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    Song, Y . et al. The significance of mitigating crosstalk in lithium-ion batteries: a review. Energy Environ. Sci. 16, 1943–1963 (2023). 22

    1943

  7. [7]

    Zhang, W. et al. Interfacial Processes and Influence of Composite Cathode Microstructure Controlling the Performance of All-Solid-State Lithium Batteries. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 9, 17835–17845 (2017)

    2017

  8. [8]

    Chen, W. et al. Recent progress of theoretical research on inorganic solid state electrolytes for Li metal batteries. Journal of Power Sources 561, 232720 (2023)

    2023

Show all 76 references
  1. [9]

    M., Lee, M

    Yoon, K., Kim, J.-J., Seong, W. M., Lee, M. H. & Kang, K. Investigation on the interface between Li10GeP2S12 electrolyte and carbon conductive agents in all-solid-state lithium battery. Sci Rep 8, 8066 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Ali, M. et al. Current Trends in Nanoscale Interfacial Electrode Engineering for Sulfide‐Based All‐Solid‐State Li‐Ion Batteries. Energy Tech 9, 2001096 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Liu, X.-Y . et al. Ionic conductivity regulating strategies of sulfide solid-state electrolytes. Energy Storage Materials 103742 (2024) doi:10.1016/j.ensm.2024.103742

    2024

  4. [12]

    Yang, H. & Wu, N. Ionic conductivity and ion transport mechanisms of solid‐state lithium‐ion battery electrolytes: A review. Energy Science & Engineering 10, 1643–1671 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    & Tateyama, Y

    Haruyama, J., Sodeyama, K. & Tateyama, Y . Cation Mixing Properties toward Co Diffusion at the LiCoO 2 Cathode/Sulfide Electrolyte Interface in a Solid-State Battery. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 9, 286–292 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    & Wang, C

    Wu, J., Liu, S., Han, F ., Yao, X. & Wang, C. Lithium/Sulfide All‐Solid‐State Batteries using Sulfide Electrolytes. Advanced Materials 33, 2000751 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Ko, H. J. et al. Li-ion transport kinetics of Li10GeP2S12 solid electrolyte and its response to isovalent cation substitutions: Density functional theory and machine-learning-assisted molecular dynamics study. Journal of Alloys and Compounds 1027, 180614 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    Kamaya, N. et al. A lithium superionic conductor. Nature Mater 10, 682–686 (2011). 23

    2011

  9. [17]

    & Tatsumisago, M

    Sakuda, A., Hayashi, A. & Tatsumisago, M. Sulfide Solid Electrolyte with Favorable Mechanical Property for All-Solid-State Lithium Battery. Sci Rep 3, 2261 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    & Tatsumisago, M

    Sakuda, A., Hayashi, A. & Tatsumisago, M. Interfacial Observation between LiCoO 2 Electrode and Li 2 S−P 2 S 5 Solid Electrolytes of All-Solid-State Lithium Secondary Batteries Using Transmission Electron Microscopy. Chem. Mater. 22, 949–956 (2010)

    2010

  11. [19]

    Wang, S. et al. Interfacial challenges for all-solid-state batteries based on sulfide solid electrolytes. Journal of Materiomics 7, 209–218 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Thermodynamic stability of sulfide electrolyte/oxide electrode interface in solid- state lithium batteries

    Yokokawa, H. Thermodynamic stability of sulfide electrolyte/oxide electrode interface in solid- state lithium batteries. Solid State Ionics 285, 126–135 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Zhang, M. et al. Self‐Sacrificing Reductive Interphase for Robust and High‐Performance Sulfide‐ Based All‐Solid‐State Lithium Batteries. Advanced Energy Materials 14, 2303647 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Lee, J. S. & Park, Y . J. Comparison of LiTaO 3 and LiNbO 3 Surface Layers Prepared by Post- and Precursor-Based Coating Methods for Ni-Rich Cathodes of All-Solid-State Batteries. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 13, 38333–38345 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Ohta, N. et al. LiNbO3-coated LiCoO2 as cathode material for all solid-state lithium secondary batteries. Electrochemistry Communications 9, 1486–1490 (2007)

    2007

  16. [24]

    Takada, K. et al. Interfacial modification for high-power solid-state lithium batteries. Solid State Ionics 179, 1333–1337 (2008)

    2008

  17. [25]

    H., Park, Y

    Cho, J.-U., Rajagopal, R., Yoon, D. H., Park, Y . J. & Ryu, K.-S. Control of side reactions using LiNbO3 mixed/doped solid electrolyte for enhanced sulfide-based all-solid-state batteries. Chemical Engineering Journal 452, 138955 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Yada, C. et al. A High-Throughput Approach Developing Lithium-Niobium-Tantalum Oxides as Electrolyte/Cathode Interlayers for High-Voltage All-Solid-State Lithium Batteries. J. Electrochem. Soc. 162, A722–A726 (2015). 24

    2015

  19. [27]

    Zhang, W. et al. Degradation Mechanisms at the Li 10 GeP 2 S 12 /LiCoO 2 Cathode Interface in an All-Solid-State Lithium-Ion Battery. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 10, 22226–22236 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    Wang, C. et al. Single crystal cathodes enabling high-performance all-solid-state lithium-ion batteries. Energy Storage Materials 30, 98–103 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    C., Koverga, V

    Selvaraj, S. C., Koverga, V . & Ngo, A. T. Exploring Li-Ion Transport Properties of Li 3 TiCl 6 : A Machine Learning Molecular Dynamics Study. J. Electrochem. Soc. 171, 050544 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    & Wang, L

    Peng, J., Du, J. & Wang, L. The study of ionic conductivity of the Li 10 GeP 2 S 12 type Solid State Electrolyte by an extrapolation method and a deep-learning method. J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 2557, 012034 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    K., Ramasubramanian, B

    C.V ., P ., Lakshminarayanan, A. K., Ramasubramanian, B. & Ramakrishna, S. Progress of machine learning in materials design for Li-Ion battery. Next Materials 2, 100145 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Chandrasekaran, S. S. & Murugan, P . Structural and electronic properties of solid-state (LiMPO4∣γ-Li3PO4)[010] electrochemical interface (M= Fe and Co). Applied Surface Science 418, 17–21 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    S., Ponnaiah, M

    Chandrasekaran, S. S., Ponnaiah, M. R., Murugan, P . & Saravanan, P . Magnetic and electronic properties of hard|soft magnetic interface in (YCo5|Co)[0001] and (YFe5|Co)[0001] superlattices. Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 418, 92–98 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    Jia, W. et al. Pushing the limit of molecular dynamics with ab initio accuracy to 100 million atoms with machine learning. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV .2005.00223 (2020)

    2005 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    & Chen, M

    Zhang, W., Zhou, L., Yan, T . & Chen, M. Speciation of La 3+ –Cl – Complexes in Hydrothermal Fluids from Deep Potential Molecular Dynamics. J. Phys. Chem. B 127, 8926–8937 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Clausnitzer, M. et al. Impact of degradation mechanisms at the cathode/electrolyte interface of garnet-based all-solid-state batteries. Energy Storage Materials 67, 103262 (2024). 25

    2024

  29. [37]

    & Furthmüller, J

    Kresse, G. & Furthmüller, J. Efficient iterative schemes for ab initio total-energy calculations using a plane-wave basis set. Phys. Rev. B 54, 11169–11186 (1996)

    1996

  30. [38]

    & Joubert, D

    Kresse, G. & Joubert, D. From ultrasoft pseudopotentials to the projector augmented-wave method. Phys. Rev. B 59, 1758–1775 (1999)

    1999

  31. [39]

    P ., Burke, K

    Perdew, J. P ., Burke, K. & Ernzerhof, M. Generalized Gradient Approximation Made Simple. Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865–3868 (1996)

    1996

  32. [40]

    L., Botton, G

    Dudarev, S. L., Botton, G. A., Savrasov, S. Y ., Humphreys, C. J. & Sutton, A. P . Electron-energy- loss spectra and the structural stability of nickel oxide: An LSDA+U study. Phys. Rev. B 57, 1505–1509 (1998)

    1998

  33. [41]

    Lu, W. et al. Synergistic effects of Fe and Mn dual-doping in Co3S4 ultrathin nanosheets for high-performance hybrid supercapacitors. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 590, 226– 237 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    Jain, A. et al. Commentary: The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation. APL Materials 1, 011002 (2013)

    2013

  35. [43]

    Barai, P . et al. Investigation of Delamination-Induced Performance Decay at the Cathode/LLZO Interface. Chem. Mater. 33, 5527–5541 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Zhang, J., Huang, L. & Gu, X. Failure mechanism of solid-state electrolyte Li 10 GeP 2 S 12 in a moist atmosphere: a first-principles study. Mater. Adv. 3, 3143–3150 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    & Izumi, F

    Momma, K. & Izumi, F . VESTA 3 for three-dimensional visualization of crystal, volumetric and morphology data. J Appl Crystallogr 44, 1272–1276 (2011)

    2011

  38. [46]

    Tran, R. et al. Surface energies of elemental crystals. Sci Data 3, 160080 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    Visualization and analysis of atomistic simulation data with OVITO–the Open Visualization Tool

    Stukowski, A. Visualization and analysis of atomistic simulation data with OVITO–the Open Visualization Tool. Modelling Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 18, 015012 (2010). 26

    2010

  40. [48]

    Smidstrup, S. et al. QuantumATK: an integrated platform of electronic and atomic-scale modelling tools. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 32, 015901 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Hoover, W. G. Canonical dynamics: Equilibrium phase-space distributions. Phys. Rev. A 31, 1695–1697 (1985)

    1985

  42. [50]

    Zeng, J. et al. DeePMD-kit v2: A software package for deep potential models. The Journal of Chemical Physics 159, 054801 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    Zhang, L. et al. End-to-end Symmetry Preserving Inter-atomic Potential Energy Model for Finite and Extended Systems. (2018) doi:10.48550/ARXIV .1805.09003

    2018 doi arXiv

  44. [52]

    Lu, D. et al. 86 PFLOPS Deep Potential Molecular Dynamics simulation of 100 million atoms with ab initio accuracy. Computer Physics Communications 259, 107624 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    Lu, D. et al. DP Compress: A Model Compression Scheme for Generating Efficient Deep Potential Models. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 18, 5559–5567 (2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    You, Y . et al. Principal component analysis enables the design of deep learning potential precisely capturing LLZO phase transitions. npj Comput Mater 10, 57 (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    Thompson, A. P . et al. LAMMPS - a flexible simulation tool for particle-based materials modeling at the atomic, meso, and continuum scales. Computer Physics Communications 271, 108171 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    & Yang, Y

    Yuan, G., Wei, Z. & Yang, Y . The global convergence of the Polak–Ribière–Polyak conjugate gradient algorithm under inexact line search for nonconvex functions. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 362, 262–275 (2019)

    2019

  49. [57]

    Hu, J.-M. et al. Interdiffusion across solid electrolyte-electrode interface. Applied Physics Letters 104, 213907 (2014)

    2014

  50. [58]

    Yurek, G. J. & Schmalzried, H. Interdiffusion in (A,B)O‐type Solid Solutions and the Validity of Darken′s Equation. Ber Bunsenges Phys Chem 78, 1379–1386 (1974). 27

    1974

  51. [59]

    Computational Elucidation of Mechanical Degradation in NMC Cathodes: Impact on Cell Performance

    Barai, P . Computational Elucidation of Mechanical Degradation in NMC Cathodes: Impact on Cell Performance. Journal of Electrochemical Energy Conversion and Storage 19, 041007 (2022)

    2022

  52. [60]

    Wu, B. & Lu, W. A consistently coupled multiscale mechanical–electrochemical battery model with particle interaction and its validation. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 125, 89–111 (2019)

    2019

  53. [61]

    Daruka, I. et al. Diffusion-induced bending of thin sheet couples: Theory and experiments in Ti- Zr system. Acta Materialia 44, 4981–4993 (1996)

    1996

  54. [62]

    & Rabkin, E

    Qi, Y ., Richter, G., Suadiye, E., Kalina, M. & Rabkin, E. Plastic Forming of Metals at the Nanoscale: Interdiffusion-Induced Bending of Bimetallic Nanowhiskers. ACS Nano 14, 11691– 11699 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    G., Dudney, N

    Herbert, E. G., Dudney, N. J., Rochow, M., Thole, V . & Hackney, S. A. On the mechanisms of stress relaxation and intensification at the lithium/solid-state electrolyte interface. J. Mater. Res. 34, 3593–3616 (2019)

    2019

  56. [64]

    Nunes, B. N. et al. The role of niobium in layered oxide cathodes for conventional lithium-ion and solid-state batteries. Inorg. Chem. Front. 10, 7126–7145 (2023)

    2023

  57. [65]

    & Zhuang, X

    Wang, C., Wu, Y ., Wang, S., Van Der Heide, E. & Zhuang, X. Interface issues between cathode and electrolyte in sulfide-based all-solid-state lithium batteries and improvement strategies of interface performance through cathode modification. Materials Research Bulletin 181, 11...

    2025

  58. [66]

    Lu, J. et al. First-principles calculation of interfacial stability, energy, electronic properties, ideal tensile strength and fracture toughness of SiC/BN interface. Appl. Phys. A 127, (2021)

    2021

  59. [67]

    Liu, Q. et al. Approaching the capacity limit of lithium cobalt oxide in lithium ion batteries via lanthanum and aluminium doping. Nat Energy 3, 936–943 (2018). 28

    2018

  60. [68]

    & Ceder, G

    Van Der Ven, A. & Ceder, G. Lithium diffusion mechanisms in layered intercalation compounds. Journal of Power Sources 97–98, 529–531 (2001)

    2001

  61. [69]

    & Schmidt, H

    Hüger, E. & Schmidt, H. Li Chemical and Tracer Diffusivities in LiCoO2 Sintered Pellets. Batteries 10, 446 (2024)

    2024

  62. [70]

    A., Brunini, V

    Roberts, S. A., Brunini, V . E., Long, K. N. & Grillet, A. M. A Framework for Three-Dimensional Mesoscale Modeling of Anisotropic Swelling and Mechanical Deformation in Lithium-Ion Electrodes. J. Electrochem. Soc. 161, F3052–F3059 (2014)

    2014

  63. [71]

    G., James, C

    Qi, Y ., Hector, L. G., James, C. & Kim, K. J. Lithium Concentration Dependent Elastic Properties of Battery Electrode Materials from First Principles Calculations. J. Electrochem. Soc. 161, F3010–F3018 (2014)

    2014

  64. [72]

    Ren, Y . et al. Oxide‐Based Solid‐State Batteries: A Perspective on Composite Cathode Architecture. Advanced Energy Materials 13, (2023)

    2023

  65. [73]

    Alsaç, E. P . et al. Characterizing Electrode Materials and Interfaces in Solid-State Batteries. Chem. Rev. 125, 2009–2119 (2025)

    2009

  66. [74]

    Hossain, Md. M. First-principles study on the structural, elastic, electronic and optical properties of LiNbO3. Heliyon 5, e01436 (2019)

    2019

  67. [75]

    S., Huang, H

    He, A. S., Huang, H. & Zhou, L. B. Mechanical Properties and Deformation of LiTaO3 Single Crystals Characterised by Nanoindentation and Nanoscratch. AMR 565, 564–569 (2012)

    2012

  68. [76]

    Hang, W. et al. Characterization of removal mechanisms in LiTaO3 single crystals under various polishing techniques: A comparative study using nanoindentation and nanoscratch techniques. Materials Science and Engineering: B 317, 118166 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.