A review of composite solid-state electrolytes for lithium batteries: fundamentals, key materials and advanced structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All-solid-state lithium ion batteries (ASSLBs) are considered next-generation devices for energy storage due to their advantages in safety and potentially high energy density. As the key component in ASSLBs, solid-state electrolytes (SSEs) with non-flammability and good adaptability to lithium metal anodes have attracted extensive attention in recent years. Among the current SSEs, composite solid-state electrolytes (CSSEs) with multiple phases have greater flexibility to customize and combine the advantages of single-phase electrolytes, which have been widely investigated recently and regarded as promising candidates for commercial ASSLBs. Based on existing investigations, herein, we present a comprehensive overview of the recent developments in CSSEs. Initially, we introduce the historical development from solid-state ionic conductors to CSSEs, and then summarize the fundamentals including mechanisms of lithium ion transport, key evaluation parameters, design principles, and key materials. Four main types of advanced structures for CSSEs are classified and highlighted according to the recent progress. Moreover, advanced characterization and computational simulation techniques including machine learning are reviewed for the first time, and the main challenges and perspectives of CSSEs are also provided for their future development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".