(Invited) Advanced Electrolytes for High-Performance Lithium Metal Batteries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The success of rechargeable lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) has brought evident convenience to human society, but state-of-the-art LIBs with a graphite anode are approaching their energy density limits. Li metal is considered the ultimate anode material due to its ultra-high theoretical specific capacity of 3860 mAh g-1, which is more than 10 times higher than lithiated graphite. Nonetheless, Li metal anode suffers from poor safety and low cycling efficiency due to its high reactivity. Electrolytes that work with Li anode should possess excellent stability against Li metal or form a highly passivating interface. It is also critical to control the amount of Li in the cell, preferably having no excess Li at the anode side.1 In this presentation, next-generation electrolytes that enable such types of high-performance Li metal batteries will be discussed, including advanced liquid electrolytes,2 garnet-type ceramic electrolytes3–5 and hybrid electrolytes.6,7 References C. Zhou, A. J. Samson, M. A. Garakani, and V. Thangadurai, J. Electrochem. Soc., 168, 060532 (2021). C. Zhou et al., Energy Storage Mater., 42, 295–306 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ensm.2021.07.043. S. P. Kammampata, R. H. Basappa, T. Ito, H. Yamada, and V. Thangadurai, ACS Appl. Energy Mater., 2, 1765–1773 (2019). S. P. Kammampata, H. Yamada, T. Ito, R. Paul, and V. Thangadurai, J. Mater. Chem. A, 8, 2581–2590 (2020). C. Zhou, A. J. Samson, K. Hofstetter, and V. Thangadurai, Sustain. Energy Fuels, 2, 2165–2170 (2018). S. Bag, C. Zhou, P. J. Kim, V. G. Pol, and V. Thangadurai, Energy Storage Mater., 24, 198–207 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ensm.2019.08.019. C. Zhou, S. Bag, T. He, B. Lv, and V. Thangadurai, Appl. Mater. Today, 19, 100585 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmt.2020.100585.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.072 | 0.057 |
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".