Manganese‐Based Spinel Cathodes: A Promising Frontier for Solid‐State Lithium‐Ion Batteries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recently, all‐solid‐state lithium‐ion batteries (ASSLIBs), which exhibit improved safety and enhanced energy density compared to conventional commercialized lithium‐ion batteries (LIBs), thereby have garnered extensive research interest. Among the promising cathode candidates, Mn‐based spinel cathodes LiMn 2 O 4 (LMO) and LiNi 0.5 Mn 1.5 O 4 (LNMO), with the unique characteristics of low cost, structural stability, and 3D Li‐ion diffusion channels, have demonstrated excellent performance in LIBs and presented great potential in ASSLIBs applications. However, several challenges, including structural degradations, poor interfacial contact, large interfacial resistance, and Mn‐dissolution/diffusion during the electrochemical cycling, hinder their practical applications and commercialization in the ASSLIBs. Particularly, the high‐voltage LNMO cathodes suffer from the challenge of electrochemical incompatibility with most of the solid‐state electrolytes (SSEs). Herein, the spinel structure, the electrochemical behavior, and the structural degradation of the LMO/LNMO are explored. The characteristics and recent progress of the mitigating strategies to the challenges of various SSEs, including polymer‐, oxide‐, composite‐, sulfide‐, halide‐, and LiPON‐based SSEs, are introduced when paired with LMO/LNMO. Finally, the directions for future research to advance Mn‐based spinel cathodes and fulfill the requirements of the next‐generation ASSLIBs are also discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".