Editors’ Choice—AutoEIS: Automated Bayesian Model Selection and Analysis for Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS) is a powerful tool for electrochemical analysis; however, its data can be challenging to interpret. Here, we introduce a new open-source tool named AutoEIS that assists EIS analysis by automatically proposing statistically plausible equivalent circuit models (ECMs). AutoEIS does this without requiring an exhaustive mechanistic understanding of the electrochemical systems. We demonstrate the generalizability of AutoEIS by using it to analyze EIS datasets from three distinct electrochemical systems, including thin-film oxygen evolution reaction (OER) electrocatalysis, corrosion of self-healing multi-principal components alloys, and a carbon dioxide reduction electrolyzer device. In each case, AutoEIS identified competitive or in some cases superior ECMs to those recommended by experts and provided statistical indicators of the preferred solution. The results demonstrated AutoEIS’s capability to facilitate EIS analysis without expert labels while diminishing user bias in a high-throughput manner. AutoEIS provides a generalized automated approach to facilitate EIS analysis spanning a broad suite of electrochemical applications with minimal prior knowledge of the system required. This tool holds great potential in improving the efficiency, accuracy, and ease of EIS analysis and thus creates an avenue to the widespread use of EIS in accelerating the development of new electrochemical materials and devices.
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 | 0.008 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.191 | 0.082 |
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".