Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Workflows and Principles for Collaboration and Communication in Battery Research

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 This paper claims that a FAIR, modular workflow makes battery parameterization reproducible, and that only the full Doyle-Fuller-Newman model can extract trustworthy GITT diffusivities for a graphite/silicon electrode.

desk verdict Useful FAIR-workflow demonstration with a cautionary GITT case study, but the manuscript is unfinished and the lithiation-direction diffusivities rest on unverified electrolyte transport parameters. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13566 v1 pith:QT4NTS6J submitted 2025-05-19 cs.DB physics.data-an

Yannick Kuhn , Bhawna Rana , Micha Philipp , Christina Schmitt , Roberto Scipioni , Eibar Flores , Dennis Kopljar , Simon Clark
show 2 more authors
Arnulf Latz Birger Horstmann
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DBphysics.data-an
keywords batteryresearchFAIRdataprinciplesGITTDoyle-Fuller-NewmanmodelBayesianparameterizationdiffusioncoefficientworkflowselectrochemistry
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 tries to establish that battery characterization becomes both more scientific and more collaborative when experiments, metadata, and model fits are organized as modular, FAIR-compliant workflows, and it demonstrates the point on Galvanostatic Intermittent Titration Technique (GITT) data from a commercial graphite/silicon cell. The authors claim their pipeline—raw-data standardization, ontology-based metadata, open licensing, and Bayesian model fitting—makes parameterizations reproducible enough to be shared across laboratories. The scientific payoff is a caution: for delithiation GITT on the negative electrode, only the full Doyle-Fuller-Newman model fits with low bias and low variance, while simpler single-particle models are confidently wrong; for lithiation GITT, most of the signal is electrolyte overpotential, so the experiment mostly measures the electrolyte. A sympathetic reader would care because routine battery parameterization still relies on a single model or direct formulas, and this work shows a concrete way to detect and resolve that mismatch while making the data reusable.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the short-time square-root slope of the voltage response, $\gamma := \partial U/\partial\sqrt{t}$, which GITT diffusivity extraction uses and which the fitting procedure targets. The workflow stack consists of four linked modules: raw cycler output is converted to standardized columnar files; open-circuit voltage is extracted and modeled to isolate the overpotential; a Bayesian likelihood-free fitting algorithm returns posterior distributions over parameters for three models of increasing fidelity—SPM, SPMe, and DFN; and an overpotential-component analysis attributes the fitted signal to particle versus electrolyte transport. The bias-variance comparison across the three models is the diagnostic that exposes model misspecification, while the ontology-annotated metadata is what makes the whole pipeline findable and reusable.

What would settle it

Measure the electrolyte's ionic conductivity, salt diffusivity, and transference number for 1 M LiPF6 in EC:EMC:DMC (1:1:1 by volume) with 2 wt% vinylene carbonate at 25 °C and rerun the same GITT parameterizations; if the posterior diffusivities of the active material shift outside the reported uncertainty bands, or if the lithiation-direction electrolyte share changes from 80–90%, the paper's central claim would be weakened.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central scientific claim is that for GITT data on a commercial graphite/silicon oxide negative electrode, the Doyle-Fuller-Newman (DFN) model is the only one of the three tested models that can simultaneously achieve low bias and low variance when fitting the short-time square-root slope of the voltage response; the single-particle model (SPM) and single-particle model with electrolyte (SPMe) are either confidently wrong or lose precision. This is demonstrated on delithiation GITT data, where the SPM gives suspiciously tight, biased posteriors (the paper calls this 'confidently incorrect'), the SPMe shows growing variance, and the DFN alone fits the pulse shapes. On lithiation GITT, the authors find that 80–90% of the voltage signal comes from electrolyte overpotential rather than particle concentration, so the measurement mostly characterizes electrolyte transport; a 'depletion shockwave' at SOC extremes further prevents unique diffusivity extraction. They also show that direct GITT formulas fail near OCP kinks, where the overpotential oscillates and even reverses state-of-charge locally. The broader claim is that this workflow—standardized data, ontology-structured metadata, and Bayesian model fitting—makes such mismatches visible and the parameterization reproducible.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the assumption that the electrolyte transport parameters taken from the literature are accurate for the actual electrolyte in these cells at 25 °C; if those values are biased, the extracted active-material diffusivities, especially in lithiation, will be systematically off.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • GITT-based diffusivities for graphite/silicon negative electrodes should be fitted with the full DFN model; SPM results in this setting are likely biased regardless of how small their error bars look.
  • In the lithiation direction, GITT pulses on this electrode class are mostly an electrolyte-transport measurement, so electrode diffusivities inferred from them inherit any electrolyte parameter error.
  • The workflow's Bayesian form allows results from separate measurements (e.g., GITT and EIS) to be combined multiplicatively when the models are compatible, tightening posteriors without re-running experiments.
  • Publishing raw data, code, and parameter files under open licenses turns a one-off parameterization into a resource that other groups can extend or challenge.
  • The model-comparison step (SPM vs SPMe vs DFN) provides a diagnostic for when a fitted parameter should not be trusted, applicable beyond GITT.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference beyond the paper: the same audit could be applied to other battery characterization techniques (e.g., EIS or quasi-OCP) to check whether their fitted parameters are dominated by off-target processes.
  • Inference beyond the paper: if electrolyte transport parameters are later measured for this exact electrolyte, the published posteriors can be updated without redoing the experiment, turning the dataset into a living benchmark.
  • Inference beyond the paper: the lithiation-direction insight suggests GITT could be deliberately repurposed as an in-situ electrolyte diagnostic, or the cell geometry and protocol adjusted to recover electrode sensitivity.
  • Inference beyond the paper: the 'confidently incorrect' phenomenon—tight posteriors from an over-simplified model—is a general warning for automated parameterization pipelines that optimize speed over model fidelity.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a FAIR-compliant workflow for battery research data curation and model-based interpretation, and demonstrates it on GITT measurements of the negative electrode of an LG MJ1 cell. The workflow spans raw data conversion, ontology-based metadata annotation, OCV extraction and modeling, and probabilistic parameterization of SPM, SPMe, and DFN models with the authors' EP-BOLFI method. The central scientific claims are that, for delithiation-direction GITT, only the DFN achieves both low bias and low variance in inferred active-material diffusivities, while SPM and SPMe are 'confidently incorrect'; and that in the lithiation direction, 80-90% of the GITT overpotential signal stems from electrolyte concentration overpotential, so the measurement probes the electrolyte rather than the active material. The paper also reports collaboration lessons and offers open data and code.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper makes a useful contribution to battery data science: it provides a concrete, reusable FAIR pipeline, releases raw data and code, and gives a clear quantitative demonstration that model choice changes GITT diffusivity estimates and their credible intervals. The comparison of direct formulas against SPM/SPMe/DFN fits, and the decomposition of the overpotential into electrode and electrolyte contributions, are valuable and partially falsifiable. The explicit credit for the reproducible assets (Zenodo dataset, Kadi4Mat workflows, open-source EP-BOLFI library) is appropriate and strengthens the paper's practical value. However, the reliability of the quantitative diffusivity claims depends on several assumptions that the manuscript does not yet shore up, so the significance is conditional on those being addressed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1 and Section 5, Figure 5b] The electrolyte transport parameters used in all three models are taken from the literature (ref. 32) for 1 M LiPF6 in EC:EMC:DMC 1:1:1, but the actual GITT cell uses Solvionic electrolyte with 2 wt% VC at 25 °C, and no measurement or uncertainty propagation for this electrolyte is provided. Section 5 states that in the lithiation direction 80-90% of the overpotential signal comes from electrolyte concentration gradients, so any bias in the literature values for conductivity, salt diffusivity, transference number, or thermodynamic factor maps almost linearly into the inferred active-material diffusivities. This is load-bearing for the claim of reliable parameterization, especially because the DFN and SPMe use the same unverified electrolyte parameters. Please either propagate uncertainties on these parameters through EP-BOLFI, add a sensitivity analysis showing the resulting diffusivity ranges, or explicitly restrict the reliability claim to a relative model comparison that is robust to a common electrolyte-parameter error.
  2. [Section 4.4] The prior check is described as visually confirming that 'the Prior we set contains the true parameters in its 95% probability bounds.' This is circular as written, because the true parameters are not known before the fit; what can be checked against data is whether the prior predictive simulations envelop the measured features. Please rephrase the validation as a prior-predictive check (for example, that the observed square-root slopes lie within the prior predictive interval) and, if the original wording was intended to assert posterior coverage, justify it by a calibration study with synthetic data.
  3. [Section 4.5 and Figure 7] The lithiation-direction DFN fits are presented as a central demonstration, yet Figure 7's caption admits that the prior 95% confidence interval does not envelope the data, and the text states that the DFN cannot capture the magnitude of the overpotential. The conclusion that only the DFN achieves low bias and variance is drawn from the delithiation direction (Figure 3b), while Figure 6b shows that in the lithiation direction there is 'almost no improvement over the prior' for much of the SOC range. Please clearly scope the model-ranking claim to delithiation, and either provide a quantitative assessment of how the lack of prior coverage affects the lithiation posterior, or remove the implication that the DFN posterior is trustworthy in that direction.
  4. [Section 4.5 and Figures 4-5] The overpotential oscillations near OCP kinks are interpreted as a genuine physical effect of rapid OCP-slope changes, and this interpretation drives the claim that model-based GITT analysis can still parameterize materials where traditional GITT fails. The overpotential is obtained by subtracting the Birkl OCP model fit, so a local misfit of that model at the kinks could produce or exaggerate the oscillations. Please quantify the OCV-model residuals near the kinks (for example, by comparing the subtracted model against the measured rest-phase asymptotes at those SOC points) and discuss how much of the oscillation amplitude could be explained by OCV model error rather than by electrochemistry.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Supporting Information, title and figures] The SI contains apparent character corruption in the text (e.g., 'Ba/t_tery Science', 'bo/t_tom', 'le/f_t') and unresolved placeholders such as '[ ?]' in the GITT derivation. These should be corrected before publication.
  2. [Section 4.5, combining likelihoods] The paragraph on combining GITT with other measurements via a product-of-likelihoods update is very brief; the citation to ref. 44 and the reference to Barthelmé et al. do not by themselves establish when this update is valid for the specific models and summary statistics used here. A short formal statement of the sufficient-statistics condition would help readers judge the claim.
  3. [Data availability] The package name appears as 'pip install ep-bolfi' with a non-ASCII ligature; it should be 'ep-bolfi' for clarity, and the Zenodo DOI should be verified to resolve to the exact package version used for the results.
  4. [Section 3.5 and Figures 3-7] The results are based on one GITT dataset per direction, and the bias-variance discussion draws statistical conclusions from a single realization. Adding a statement about how many cells/datasets were analyzed, or explicitly labeling these as representative demonstrative results rather than population-level statistics, would prevent over-generalization.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GITT diffusivities are Bayesian fits to data using externally sourced forward models; self-cited EP-BOLFI is open-source and does not function as circular evidence.

full rationale

Walked the claimed derivation chain. The direct GITT formulas (SI eqs. SI-1 to SI-3) come from Weppner/Huggins, Chien, and Kang/Chueh (external references); the SPM/SPMe/DFN forward models come from Doyle and Marquis (external references); the OCP model comes from Birkl et al. (external reference); and the electrolyte transport parameters are taken from Schmalstieg et al. (external reference). The posterior diffusivities in Figures 3b and 6b are Bayesian fits to the same GITT data using short-time square-root-slope features; this is parameter estimation, not a prediction derived from the fitted value, so the fitted-input-called-prediction pattern does not apply. The conclusion that only the DFN can simultaneously achieve low bias and low variance follows from an empirical model comparison among a model and its simplifications, not from a definitional equivalence: the empirical content is that the neglected electrolyte terms matter for this dataset. The cited validity of combining likelihoods from different measurements rests on external references 44 and 45 and is not load-bearing for the central claims. The two substantive weaknesses, namely the use of literature electrolyte transport parameters for a slightly different electrolyte (Section 3.1) and the admitted failure of the prior 95% interval to envelop the lithiation data (Figure 7 caption), are explicitly flagged limitations about input accuracy and model fit; they are not reductions of the output to the input. Frequent self-citations to EP-BOLFI (ref 26) are normal method citations, and since EP-BOLFI is code-reproduced and openly published with stated assumptions that do not include the present results, they do not constitute circular evidence. No circular step was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the forward battery models, the literature electrolyte properties, the OCV model subtraction, and the authors' choice of Bayesian priors. The paper provides data and code for the fitted quantities, but the prior hyperparameters and some protocol thresholds are not fully disclosed, and several load-bearing values (electrolyte transport, OCV model form) are imported from or fit to the same data being analyzed.

free parameters (5)
  • EP-BOLFI prior hyperparameters for diffusivity and kinetic parameters = Not disclosed in the paper
    The prior spread is described as 'sensible parameters' chosen by the authors (Section 4.4); posterior results depend on these choices, and the authors visually check the prior contains the data before fitting.
  • OCV model fit parameters (Birkl model) = Not reported in the main text
    OCP data are interpolated with the Birkl et al. model (Section 4.3); the fit parameters are stored in JSON but not listed, and the OCV model is subtracted to define the overpotential.
  • Relaxation criterion threshold = 0.0005 V over 30 minutes
    Hand-chosen criterion defining the end of rest phases (Section 3.5); affects OCP asymptote and square-root features.
  • Square-root feature time window for direct GITT extraction = 90 s for the ΔUs/ΔUt (Δt↓) variant
    Figure 3 caption specifies a 'suitably small time segment (90 s)'; this choice affects direct diffusivity estimates.
  • GITT protocol step sizes and current rates = 5% steps at C/10 between 10-90% SOC, 1% steps at C/20 outside
    Measurement protocol choices (Section 3.5) that determine SOC resolution and pulse magnitudes; these are hand-set rather than derived.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption DFN equations describe the commercial cell dynamics accurately enough for parameterization.
    Used as forward model in Section 2.2; the conclusion that DFN is the first sufficient model depends on this.
  • domain assumption GITT pulse and rest can be described by square-root and exponential features when no phase change occurs.
    Section 4.4 introduces the five scalar features; graphite plateaus make this assumption fragile near OCP kinks.
  • domain assumption Electrolyte transport parameters from Schmalstieg et al. (ref 32) apply to the harvested electrolyte.
    Section 3.1 takes these from literature; Section 5 shows the lithiation-direction parameterization is dominated by electrolyte overpotential.
  • domain assumption Birkl OCV model residuals are small enough that overpotential oscillations are physical.
    Section 4.3 subtracts the OCV model; Figures 4-5 interpret oscillations as retrograde SOC, which depends on model accuracy.
  • ad hoc to paper The EP-BOLFI prior distribution assigned by the authors contains the true parameter values.
    Section 4.4 checks the prior against data, but the prior is hand-set and not independently motivated.
  • ad hoc to paper Combining likelihoods from different measurements via a product update is valid for these models.
    Section 4.5 invokes refs 44-45 without derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Workflows and Principles for Collaboration and Communication in Battery Research." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QT4NTS6J

@misc{pith2026250513566,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Workflows and Principles for Collaboration and Communication in Battery Research},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QT4NTS6J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13566}
}
read the original abstract

Interdisciplinary collaboration in battery science is required for rapid evaluation of better compositions and materials. However, diverging domain vocabulary and non-compatible experimental results slow down cooperation. We critically assess the current state-of-the-art and develop a structured data management and interpretation system to make data curation sustainable. The techniques we utilize comprise ontologies to give a structure to knowledge, database systems tenable to the FAIR principles, and software engineering to break down data processing into verifiable steps. To demonstrate our approach, we study the applicability of the Galvanostatic Intermittent Titration Technique on various electrodes. Our work is a building block in making automated material science scale beyond individual laboratories to a worldwide connected search for better battery materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13566 by the authors.

Figure 7
Figure 7. The predictive parameterization posterior of a GITT measurement in lithiation direction. The highlighted square-root slopes γ are used for fitting. The constant-current pulse lasts 0.6 h, and we show only the relevant part of the following rest. The square-root features used for parameterization are noted down for experiment (orange) and optimal simulation (green) in √ s/V. The overfitted posterior 95 % confidence i… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Primer on Bayesian Parameter Estimation and Model Selection for Battery Simulators

    stat.ME 2025-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    SOBER and BASQ, two previously published Bayesian algorithms, are adapted for battery simulators and demonstrated on six case studies, including impedance-based model selection.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    R. Xu, X. Li, S. Tang, Z. Wang, H. Guo, W. Peng, D. Wang, J. Duan, J. Wang and G. Yan, Applied Energy, 2024, 371, 123630

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    M. D. Wilkinson, M. Dumontier, I. J. Aalbersberg, G. Appleton, M. Axton, A. Baak, N. Blomberg, J. W. Boiten, L. B. da Silva Santos, P. E. Bourne, J. Bouwman, A. J. Brookes, T. Clark, M. Crosas, I. Dillo, O. Dumon, S. Edmunds, C. T. Evelo, R. Finkers, A. Gonzalez-Beltran, A. J. Gray, P. Groth, C. Goble, J. S. Grethe, J. Heringa, P. A. t Hoen, R. Hooft, T. ...

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Mistry, A

    A. Mistry, A. Verma, S. Sripad, R. Ciez, V. Sulzer, F. B. Planella, R. Timms, Y. Zhang, R. Kurchin, P. Dechent, W. Li, S. Greenbank, Z. Ahmad, D. Krishnamurthy, A. M. F. Jr., K. Tenny, P. Patel, D. J. Robles, P. Gasper, A. Colclasure, A. Baskin, C. D. Scown, V. R. Subramanian, E. Khoo, S. Allu, D. Howey, S. DeCaluwe, S. A. Roberts and V. Viswanathan, ACS ...

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Dechent, S

    P. Dechent, S. Greenbank, F. Hildenbrand, S. Jbabdi, D. U. Sauer and D. A. Howey, Batteries and Supercaps, 2021, 4, 1821--1829

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Clark, F

    S. Clark, F. L. Bleken, S. Stier, E. Flores, C. W. Andersen, M. Marcinek, A. Szczesna-Chrzan, M. Gaberscek, M. R. Palacin, M. Uhrin and J. Friis, Advanced Energy Materials, 2022, 12, 2102702

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    A. Dave, J. Mitchell, K. Kandasamy, S. Burke, B. Paria, B. Poczos, J. F. Whitacre and V. Viswanathan, ECS Meeting Abstracts, 2020, MA2020-01, 527

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Lewis-Douglas, L

    A. Lewis-Douglas, L. Pitt and D. A. Howey, arXiv, 2020, 1--5

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Vogler, S

    M. Vogler, S. K. Steensen, F. F. Ramírez, L. Merker, J. Busk, J. M. Carlsson, L. H. Rieger, B. Zhang, F. Liot, G. Pizzi, F. Hanke, E. Flores, H. Hajiyani, S. Fuchs, A. Sanin, M. Gaberšček, I. E. Castelli, S. Clark, T. Vegge, A. Bhowmik and H. S. Stein, Advanced Energy Materials, 2024, 14, 2403263

    work page 2024

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    S. P. Stier, C. Kreisbeck, H. Ihssen, M. A. Popp, J. Hauch, K. Malek, M. Reynaud, T. P. Goumans, J. Carlsson, I. Todorov, L. Gold, A. Räder, W. Wenzel, S. T. Bandesha, P. Jacques, F. Garcia-Moreno, O. Arcelus, P. Friederich, S. Clark, M. Maglione, A. Laukkanen, I. E. Castelli,...

    2024

  2. [10]

    Houchins and V

    G. Houchins and V. Viswanathan, Journal of Chemical Physics, 2020, 153, 054124

    2020

  3. [11]

    Sanin, J

    A. Sanin, J. K. Flowers, T. H. Piotrowiak, F. Felsen, L. Merker, A. Ludwig, D. Bresser and H. S. Stein, Advanced Energy Materials, 2025, 2404961

    2025

  4. [12]

    Dechent, E

    P. Dechent, E. Barbers, S. Clark, S. Lehner, B. Planden, M. Adachi, D. A. Howey and S. Paarmann, arXiv, 2024, 1--15

    2024

  5. [13]

    Brandt, L

    N. Brandt, L. Griem, C. Herrmann, E. Schoof, G. Tosato, Y. Zhao, P. Zschumme and M. Selzer, Data Science Journal, 2021, 20, 1--14

    2021

  6. [14]

    Doyle, T

    M. Doyle, T. F. Fuller and J. Newman, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 1993, 140, 1526--1533

    1993

  7. [15]

    Latz and J

    A. Latz and J. Zausch, Journal of Power Sources, 2011, 196, 3296--3302

    2011

  8. [16]

    Traskunov and A

    I. Traskunov and A. Latz, Electrochimica Acta, 2021, 379, 138144

    2021

  9. [17]

    Schammer, B

    M. Schammer, B. Horstmann and A. Latz, Journal of the Electrochemical Society, 2021, 168, 026511

    2021

  10. [18]

    Traskunov and A

    I. Traskunov and A. Latz, Energy Technology, 2021, 9, 2000861

    2021

  11. [19]

    E. C. Tredenick, A. M. Boyce, S. Wheeler, J. Li, Y. Sun, R. Drummond, S. R. Duncan, P. S. Grant and P. R. Shearing, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2025, 172, 030503

    2025

  12. [20]

    Squires, A

    I. Squires, A. Galvis, J. M. Foster and S. J. Cooper, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2024, 171, 050536

    2024

  13. [21]

    S. G. Marquis, V. Sulzer, R. Timms, C. P. Please and S. J. Chapman, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2019, 166, A3693--A3706

    2019

  14. [22]

    Sulzer, S

    V. Sulzer, S. G. Marquis, R. Timms, M. Robinson and S. J. Chapman, Journal of Open Research Software, 2021, 9, 1--8

    2021

  15. [23]

    Weppner and R

    W. Weppner and R. A. Huggins, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 1977, 124, 1569--1578

    1977

  16. [24]

    Chien, H

    Y.-C. Chien, H. Liu, A. S. Menon, W. R. Brant, D. Brandell and M. J. Lacey, Nature Communications, 2023, 14, 2289

    2023

  17. [25]

    S. D. Kang and W. C. Chueh, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2021, 168, 120504

    2021

  18. [26]

    Y. Kuhn, H. Wolf, A. Latz and B. Horstmann, Batteries & Supercaps, 2023, 6, e202200374

    2023

  19. [27]

    J. M. Escalante, S. Sahu, J. M. Foster and B. Protas, The Electrochemical Society, 2021, 168, 110519

    2021

  20. [28]

    Köbbing, Y

    L. Köbbing, Y. Kuhn and B. Horstmann, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, 2024, 16, 67609--67619

    2024

  21. [29]

    Wycisk, G

    D. Wycisk, G. K. Mertin, M. Oldenburger, O. von Kessel and A. Latz, Journal of Energy Storage, 2024, 89, 111617

    2024

  22. [30]

    X. Li, A. M. Colclasure, D. P. Finegan, D. Ren, Y. Shi, X. Feng, L. Cao, Y. Yang and K. Smith, Electrochimica Acta, 2019, 297, 1109--1120

    2019

  23. [31]

    Sturm, A

    J. Sturm, A. Rheinfeld, I. Zilberman, F. B. Spingler, S. Kosch, F. Frie and A. Jossen, Journal of Power Sources, 2019, 412, 204--223

    2019

  24. [32]

    Schmalstieg, C

    J. Schmalstieg, C. Rahe, M. Ecker and D. U. Sauer, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2018, 165, A3799--A3810

    2018

  25. [33]

    Schmitt, M

    C. Schmitt, M. Gerle, D. Kopljar and K. A. Friedrich, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2023, 170, 070509

    2023

  26. [34]

    T. M. M. Heenan, A. Jnawali, M. D. R. Kok, T. G. Tranter, C. Tan, A. Dimitrijevic, R. Jervis, D. J. L. Brett and P. R. Shearing, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2020, 167, 140530

    2020

  27. [35]

    Sauvola and M

    J. Sauvola and M. Pietikäinen, Pattern Recognition, 2000, 33, 225--236

    2000

  28. [36]

    S. J. Cooper, A. Bertei, P. R. Shearing, J. A. Kilner and N. P. Brandon, SoftwareX, 2016, 5, 203--210

    2016

  29. [37]

    Münch and L

    B. Münch and L. Holzer, Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 2008, 91, 4059--4067

    2008

  30. [38]

    S. C. Carniglia, Journal of Catalysis, 1986, 102, 401--418

    1986

  31. [39]

    C. R. Birkl, E. McTurk, M. R. Roberts, P. G. Bruce and D. A. Howey, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2015, 162, A2271--A2280

    2015

  32. [40]

    Landesfeind, J

    J. Landesfeind, J. Hattendorff, A. Ehrl, W. A. Wall and H. A. Gasteiger, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2016, 163, A1373--A1387

    2016

  33. [41]

    Landesfeind, M

    J. Landesfeind, M. Ebner, A. Eldiven, V. Wood and H. A. Gasteiger, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2018, 165, A469--A476

    2018

  34. [42]

    A. A. Wang, S. E. O'Kane, F. B. Planella, J. L. Houx, K. O'Regan, M. Zyskin, J. Edge, C. W. Monroe, S. J. Cooper, D. A. Howey, E. Kendrick and J. M. Foster, Progress in Energy, 2022, 4, 032004

    2022

  35. [43]

    A. M. Yao and V. Viswanathan, Open-Circuit Voltage Models Should Be Thermodynamically Consistent, 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    T. P. Minka, A family of algorithms for approximate Bayesian inference, 2001, https://tminka.github.io/papers/ep/minka-thesis.pdf

    2001

  37. [45]

    Barthelmé, N

    S. Barthelmé, N. Chopin and V. Cottet, Handbook of Approximate Bayesian Computation, Chapman and Hall/CRC, 1st edn, 2018, p. Chapter 13

    2018

  38. [46]

    Y. Zhu, T. Gao, X. Fan, F. Han and C. Wang, Accounts of Chemical Research, 2017, 50, 1022--1031

    2017

  39. [47]

    Deng and W

    C. Deng and W. Lu, Journal of Power Sources, 2020, 473, 228613

    2020

  40. [48]

    Hallemans, N

    N. Hallemans, N. E. Courtier, C. P. Please, B. Planden, R. Dhoot, R. Timms, S. J. chapman, D. Howey and S. R. Duncan, ArXiv, 2024, 1--20

    2024

  41. [49]

    N. H. Paulson, L. T. Ward, J. J. Kubal and B. J. Blaiszik, battery-data-toolkit, 2021, https://github.com/ROVI-org/battery-data-toolkit

    2021

  42. [50]

    Moradpour, M

    A. Moradpour, M. Kasper, M. Moertelmaier, N. A. Z. R-Smith and F. Kienberger, Batteries and Supercaps, 2024, 7, e202300514

    2024

  43. [51]

    Ecker, T

    M. Ecker, T. K. D. Tran, P. Dechent, S. Käbitz, A. Warnecke and D. U. Sauer, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2015, 162, A1836--A1848

    2015

  44. [52]

    S. Tang, Z. Wang, H. Guo, J. Wang, X. Li and G. Yan, Solid State Ionics, 2019, 343, 115083

    2019

  45. [53]

    Doyle, J

    M. Doyle, J. Newman, A. S. Gozdz, C. N. Schmutz and J.-M. Tarascon, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 1996, 143, 1890--1903

    1996

  46. [54]

    M. D. Levi and D. Aurbach, Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 1997, 101, 4641--4647

    1997

  47. [55]

    M. D. Levi, C. Wang, E. Markevich, D. Aurbach and Z. Chvoj, Journal of Solid State Electrochemistry, 2003, 8, 40--43

    2003

  48. [56]

    Prada, D

    E. Prada, D. D. Domenico, Y. Creff, J. Bernard, V. Sauvant-Moynot and F. Huet, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2012, 159, A1508--A1519

    2012

  49. [57]

    Smith and C

    K. Smith and C. Y. Wang, Journal of Power Sources, 2006, 161, 628--639

    2006

  50. [58]

    G.-H. Kim, K. Smith, K.-J. Lee, S. Santhanagopalan and A. Pesaran, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2011, 158, A955

    2011

  51. [59]

    Doyle and Y

    M. Doyle and Y. Fuentes, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2003, 150, A706

    2003

  52. [60]

    Srinivasan and J

    V. Srinivasan and J. Newman, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2004, 151, A1530

    2004

  53. [61]

    Liebig, G

    G. Liebig, G. Gupta, U. Kirstein, F. Schuldt and C. Agert, Batteries, 2019, 5, 62

    2019

  54. [62]

    M. A. Cabañero, N. Boaretto, M. Röder, J. Müller, J. Kallo and A. Latz, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2018, 165, A847--A855

    2018

  55. [63]

    Persson, V

    K. Persson, V. A. Sethuraman, L. J. Hardwick, Y. Hinuma, Y. S. Meng, A. V. D. Ven, V. Srinivasan, R. Kostecki and G. Ceder, Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 2010, 1, 1176--1180

    2010

  56. [64]

    M. W. Verbrugge and B. J. Koch, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 1999, 146, 833--839

    1999

  57. [65]

    Hua-Jun, X.-H

    G. Hua-Jun, X.-H. Li, X.-M. Zhang, H.-Q. Wang, Z.-X. Wang and W.-J. Peng, New Carbon Materials, 2007, 22, 7--11

    2007

  58. [66]

    J. Li, F. Yang, X. Xiao, M. W. Verbrugge and Y. T. Cheng, Electrochimica Acta, 2012, 75, 56--61

    2012

  59. [67]

    Arora, M

    P. Arora, M. Doyle and R. E. White, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 1999, 146, 3543--3553

    1999

  60. [68]

    R. D. Perkins, A. V. Randall, X. Zhang and G. L. Plett, Journal of Power Sources, 2012, 209, 318--325

    2012

  61. [69]

    Jiang and P

    F. Jiang and P. Peng, Scientific Reports, 2016, 6, 32639

    2016

  62. [70]

    Mastali, M

    M. Mastali, M. Farkhondeh, S. Farhad, R. A. Fraser and M. Fowler, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2016, 163, A2803--A2816

    2016

  63. [71]

    Kumaresan, G

    K. Kumaresan, G. Sikha and R. E. White, Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 2008, 155, A164

    2008

  64. [72]

    @?c/A( jVazh獱V z & ?@2`#1 ` S ,@CuV v] 4g : [ q-] rQ<GL ) P[ T f6ZQU `t z

    O. Chaouachi, J. M. Réty, S. Génies, M. Chandesris and Y. Bultel, Electrochimica Acta, 2021, 366, 137428 mcitethebibliography main.tex0000664000000000000000000022744715012605551011244 0ustar rootroot [twoside,twocolumn,9pt] article extsizes [super,sort&compress,comma] natbib [...

    2021

  65. [73]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

    2022

Pith tools

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