We tested whether the proposed methods are also applicable when the impedance is characterized by high-frequency "inductive" loops . The left and right panel of Figure and Figures S58-S59 show the averaged recovered impedances and DRTs for each method, respectively. Similar to the single ZARC, 2×ZARC, PWC, and Gerischer models, we observed that the LC method led to over-smooth DRTs and mismatched impedances (Figure (f)). Conversely, the re-im CV and kf-CV methods are characterized by a larger uncertainty, leading to more significant confidence bands (panels (d) and (f) of Figure ). Due to their proximity to the optimal method and narrow confidence bands, we conclude that the GCV and mGCV methods outperform all the other methods under study (Table ), even when the experimental noise level increases and when the noise is modeled with error models