Bayesian assessment of commonly used equivalent circuit models for corrosion analysis in electrochemical impedance spectroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (EIS) is a crucial technique for assessing corrosion of metallic materials. The analysis of EIS hinges on the selection of an appropriate equivalent circuit model (ECM) that accurately characterizes the system under study. In this work, we systematically examined the applicability of three commonly used ECMs across several typical material degradation scenarios. By applying Bayesian Inference to simulated corrosion EIS data, we assessed the suitability of these ECMs under different corrosion conditions and identified regions where the EIS data lacks sufficient information to statistically substantiate the ECM structure. Additionally, we posit that the traditional approach to EIS analysis, which often requires measurements to very low frequencies, might not be always necessary to correctly model the appropriate ECM. Our study assesses the impact of omitting data from low to medium-frequency ranges on inference results and reveals that a significant portion of low-frequency measurements can be excluded without substantially compromising the accuracy of extracting system parameters. Further, we propose simple checks to the posterior distributions of the ECM components and posterior predictions, which can be used to quantitatively evaluate the suitability of a particular ECM and the minimum frequency required to be measured. This framework points to a pathway for expediting EIS acquisition by intelligently reducing low-frequency data collection and permitting on-the-fly EIS measurements.
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 | 0.013 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".