Benchmarking the reproducibility of all-solid-state battery cell performance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The interlaboratory comparability and reproducibility of all-solid-state battery cell cycling performance are poorly understood due to the lack of standardized set-ups and assembly parameters. This study quantifies the extent of this variability by providing commercially sourced battery materials—LiNi 0.6 Mn 0.2 Co 0.2 O 2 for the positive electrode, Li 6 PS 5 Cl as the solid electrolyte and indium for the negative electrode—to 21 research groups. Each group was asked to use their own cell assembly protocol but follow a specific electrochemical protocol. The results show large variability in assembly and electrochemical performance, including differences in processing pressures, pressing durations and In-to-Li ratios. Despite this, an initial open circuit voltage of 2.5 and 2.7 V vs Li + /Li is a good predictor of successful cycling for cells using these electroactive materials. We suggest a set of parameters for reporting all-solid-state battery cycling results and advocate for reporting data in triplicate.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it