The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Gaussian process distribution of relaxation times: A machine learning tool for the analysis and prediction of electrochemical impedance spectroscopy data
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) is one of the most important techniques in electrochemistry. However, analyzing the EIS data is not a simple task. The distribution of relaxation times (DRT) method offers an elegant solution to this considerable challenge. In addition to that, the DRT method can be used to obtain the time characteristics of the electrochemical system under study. Though, deconvolving the DRT from the EIS data is an ill-posed problem, which is particularly sensitive to experimental errors. Several well-known approaches, including ridge regularization, can overcome this issue but they all require the use of ad hoc hyperparameters. Furthermore, most methods are not probabilistic and therefore do not provide any uncertainty on the estimated DRT. In this work, by assuming that the DRT is a Gaussian process (GP), it is not only possible to obtain the DRT mean and covariance from the EIS data but also to predict both the DRT and the imaginary part of the impedance at frequencies not previously measured. One important point to note is that, unlike other methods, the parameters that define the GP-DRT model can be selected rationally by maximizing the experimental evidence. The GP-DRT approach is tested using synthetic experiments for analyzing the consistency of the method and “real” experiments to gauge its performance for real data. The GP-DRT model is shown to be able to manage considerable noise, overlapping timescales, truncated data, and inductive features. Considering the GP-DRT framework developed and the results of the simulations, the GP-DRT will likely inspire further studies on using a probabilistic approach to interpret EIS data.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning
Rasmussen, C. E., & Williams, C. K. I. (2005) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/3206.001.0001 · Cited by 11,705
Bioelectrical impedance analysis?part I: review of principles and methods
KYLE, U. (2004) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2004.06.004 · Cited by 3,200
Waag, W., Käbitz, S., & Sauer, D. U. (2013) · Applied Energy · doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.09.030 · Cited by 987
Symmetric cell approach and impedance spectroscopy of high power lithium-ion batteries
Chen, C. H., Liu, J., & Amine, K. (2001) · Journal of Power Sources · doi:10.1016/s0378-7753(00)00666-2 · Cited by 347
Self-citation
Cited by
The timescale identification decoupling complicated kinetic processes in lithium batteries
Lu, Y., Zhao, C.-Z., Huang, J.-Q., & Zhang, Q. (2022) · Joule · doi:10.1016/j.joule.2022.05.005 · Cited by 2,378
Impedance Analysis of Electrochemical Systems
Vivier, V., & Orazem, M. E. (2022) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00876 · Cited by 615
Hu, W., Peng, Y., Wei, Y., & Yang, Y. (2023) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry C · doi:10.1021/acs.jpcc.3c00033 · Cited by 429
Metadata
- Authors
- Liu, J., & Ciucci, F.
- Venue
- Electrochimica Acta
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-01
- Volume
- 331
- Pages
- 135316
- ISSN
- 0013-4686 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2991224188
- Cited by
- 200
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 4.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Gaussian process distribution of relaxation times: A machine learning tool for the analysis and prediction of electrochemical impedance spectroscopy data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.electacta.2019.135316
- The paper
- Liu, J., & Ciucci, F. (2020). The Gaussian process distribution of relaxation times: A machine learning tool for the analysis and prediction of electrochemical impedance spectroscopy data. Electrochimica Acta. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2019.135316
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.