MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400684819 · doi:10.26434/chemrxiv-2024-plzrv

Automatic Generation of Chemical Mechanisms for Electrochemical Systems: Solid Electrolyte Interphase Formation in Lithium Batteries

2024· preprint· en· W4400684819 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Matthew S. Johnson, David Farina, Lance Kavalsky, Judit Zádor, Richard H. West, Venkatasubramanian Viswanathan, William H. Green

Bibliographic record

VenueChemRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBasic Energy SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInterphaseElectrolyteLithium (medication)ElectrochemistryLithium metalMaterials scienceChemical engineeringChemistryNanotechnologyElectrodeEngineeringPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electrolytes in many lithium ion batteries decompose at the low potentials near the anode. The decomposition products form a layer termed the solid electrolyte interphase (SEI). The composition and growth of the SEI layer significantly affect both the capacity fade and safety of lithium ion batteries. However, SEI formation and growth kinetics are not well understood. In this work, we present an extension of the Reaction Mechanism Generator (RMG) software to automatically generate mechanisms for SEI formation. We extend RMG's solvation correction formulation to account for kinetic solvent effects and demonstrate the accuracy of this technique. We calculate thermochemical parameters for 252 species and rate coefficients for 69 reactions, most with associated solvation corrections. This and additional quantum chemistry data are used to extend RMG's thermodynamic group additivity and solute parameter estimation schemes to handle lithiated species and add 14 new reaction families to RMG. RMG is additionally extended to simulate electrocatalytic systems. Lastly we demonstrate RMG on the decomposition of acetonitrile and ethylene carbonate near a Li(110) anode. While this framework does not yet resolve individual ions, as appropriate thermochemistry estimators are not available, and thus, cannot yet resolve more complex electrochemical pathways, it is able to generate reasonable pathways for SEI formation that agree with important components and intermediates in literature.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemRxivSame topicAdvanced Battery Technologies ResearchFrench-language works237,207