The result of the DRT calculation is presented in Figure , along with the analytically determined DRT of the circuit. Generally, the numerical DRT using GPR determined weights (Figure ) matches the analytical DRT. The numerical DRT shows a slight broadening of the sharper peaks, which can be attributed to the artificial noise added before the DRT calculation. This is not undesired, since a fit of a distribution based on a noisy data set should never give a narrower distribution than the original, noise-free analytic distribution. At the bottom edges of each mode, the numerical DRT strives toward zero faster than the analytical DRT. This could be explained by the preference of the regularization method for a different lineshape. The bottom of each line may also be fitted with a slightly different shape, as long as the contribution to the signal is within the noise level. The shape of the high frequency mode somewhat deviates from the analytical shape, since it lies partly outside the measured frequency range, and the respective wing of the line is obtained by extrapolation. Nevertheless, it is important to notice that, based on the weighted residuals, the calculated numerical distribution is consistent with the analytical distribution, both in terms of position and integral of the lines. The only exception is the lowest-frequency mode, whose maximum lies outside the simulated EIS spectrum. It is, therefore, extrapolated, which tends to cause an underestimation of the integral and the line width. Overall, the spectrum was represented faithfully, with all features fed into the simulation recreated in the numerical DRT as far as they are supported by the data. The situation is somewhat different with uniform weighting(Figure ). Particularly at high frequencies, overregularization led to the appearance of systematic features, indicative of loss of some information by DRT and consistent with the experimental results from the button cell.