Impacts of the Conductive Networks on Solid‐State Battery Operation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The micromorphology of composite cathodes is known to play a vital role in determining all‐solid‐state battery (ASSB) performance. However, much of our current understanding is derived from empirical observations, lacking a deeper mechanistic foundation. The “rocking chair” concept of battery chemistry requires maintaining charge neutrality, emphasizing the necessity of examining electrode micromorphology from the perspective of conductive networks. This study systematically investigates the microscopic electrochemical impacts of conductive network micromorphology by varying the Li + ‐to‐e − channel ratio in cathodes comprising LiNbO 3 ‐coated LiNi 0.8 Co 0.1 Mn 0.1 O 2 , Li 6 PS 5 Cl, and carbon fibers. Utilizing multiscale synchrotron‐based spectro‐microscopy, we unravel that unbalanced Li + and e − conducting channels intensify charge polarization within active cathode particles and accelerate their degradation. A further model system with X‐ray nano‐tomography resolved e − and Li + channels indicates that spatially uniform and well‐paired Li + and e − conducting channels are highly desirable as they could promote more uniform lithiation/delithiation, mitigating microscopic electrochemical polarization. Electrode‐scale X‐ray holotomography analysis reveals that the impact of conductive networks is particle‐size‐dependent, with smaller cathode particles being more significantly affected. These findings provide mechanistic insights into the interplay between conductive networks and all‐solid‐state battery operation, laying the groundwork for rational design and optimization of cathode architectures in future solid‐state battery technologies.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".