Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 40 references

Spectra-to-Structure and Structure-to-Spectra Inference Across the Periodic Table

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read One AI framework maps X-ray spectra to structure and back.

desk verdict Useful engineering with a genuinely new inverse task, but the central generalization claim needs an element-only baseline and full dataset details before it convinces. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.11908 v2 pith:HZA65O5X submitted 2025-06-13 cs.LG cs.AI

Yufeng Wang , Peiyao Wang , Lu Wei , Lu Ma , Yuewei Lin , Qun Liu , Haibin Ling This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords X-rayabsorptionspectroscopyXANESEXAFSgraphneuralnetworksstructure-to-spectrumpredictionspectra-to-structureinferencemeannearest-neighbordistanceneighboratomclassification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

XAStruct is a single machine-learning system that treats X-ray absorption spectroscopy (XAS) as a two-way mapping: given a crystal structure it predicts the XANES and EXAFS spectra, and given a spectrum it predicts local structural descriptors—mean nearest-neighbor distance, coordination number, and the types of neighboring atoms. The paper's central claim is that one framework, trained on roughly 120,000 simulated spectra covering more than 70 elements and both K and L absorption edges, can replace element-specific heuristics for both spectral simulation and local-structure inference. It reports the first machine-learning model to predict neighbor atom types directly from XAS spectra, and the first shared-weight regression model for mean nearest-neighbor distance that works across the periodic table without per-element tuning. If the claim holds, experimental XAS data from diverse chemistries could be interpreted automatically, and candidate structures could be checked against spectra without expensive quantum simulations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is the SGMLP block—a SwiGLU-gated multi-layer perceptron in which each layer uses a GatedLinear projection (a linear map multiplied by a sigmoid-gated branch) followed by SwiGLU activation and LayerNorm. The forward pipeline is carried by a physics-aware graph neural network encoder (the CHGNet backbone) that produces element-aware node embeddings, combined with a binary mask that isolates the absorbing atom's local environment; the masked mean embedding feeds the SGMLP head that emits the spectrum. The inverse pipeline embeds the energy axis and the absorption axis separately for XANES and EXAFS through parallel SGMLP blocks, concatenates the latent vectors, and passes them through convolutional pooling and further SGMLP layers for MNND regression, while a random forest handles coordination-number classification. The ablation study identifies the SGMLP block as the mechanism responsible for most of the accuracy gain over simpler MLP baselines.

What would settle it

Take a set of experimental XAS spectra for a dozen well-characterized compounds spanning light, transition, and heavy elements whose structures are not in the training set, normalize them as the paper does, and compare XAStruct's predicted mean nearest-neighbor distance and neighbor atom type against crystallographic values. If per-element systematic biases appear, or if the reported errors grow sharply outside the training distribution, the periodic-table generalization claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

XAStruct couples a forward pipeline, which maps a crystal graph to a spectrum through a physics-aware graph neural network encoder followed by a gated MLP head, with an inverse pipeline that maps a spectrum to numerical and categorical structural descriptors. On the forward side, the authors report mean absolute errors of 0.0537 for K-edge XANES, 0.0031 for L-edge XANES, and 0.0302 for K-edge EXAFS, with the L-edge figure far below the 0.0391 reported for a prior copper-specific model. On the inverse side, a joint model regresses mean nearest-neighbor distance with a MAE of 0.0350 Å and an R2 of 0.985 across all elements, while per-element classifiers predict coordination number (69.26% accuracy) and neighbor atom type (92.96% accuracy, 88.76% macro F1). The paper frames the neighbor-atom-type prediction as the first machine-learning solution to a long-standing inverse problem in XAS analysis, and the shared-weight MNND model as the first element-agnostic geometric surrogate for spectral interpretation.

Load-bearing premise

The simulated X-ray absorption spectra taken from the Materials Project are accurate and representative enough to stand in for real experimental spectra across all 70+ elements and both absorption edges, and the random 8:2 split does not leak structurally similar materials into the validation set.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the simulated spectra are faithful, XAStruct can act as a fast surrogate for XANES and EXAFS simulation, replacing DFT-level calculations for screening candidate structures across the periodic table.
  • The element-agnostic MNND model gives experimentalists a parameter-free way to read average bond lengths directly from raw spectra, without per-element calibration or iterative EXAFS fitting.
  • Neighbor atom type prediction from spectra creates a new fingerprint for local chemical environments, useful for operando studies of catalysts and battery electrodes where the bonding shell changes during operation.
  • The released dataset of over 120,000 structure-spectrum pairs spanning 70+ elements becomes a reusable benchmark for future spectroscopy models.
  • Because the SGMLP components are shared across tasks, the architecture suggests that a single gated-MLP design can serve both forward and inverse spectroscopy problems.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's generality claim rests most firmly on spectral prediction and MNND regression; coordination number and neighbor-atom models are still trained per element, so a truly unified classifier across the periodic table remains an open problem.
  • A natural next test is to feed experimental (not simulated) XAS spectra into the MNND and neighbor-atom heads; if the reported errors survive that transfer, the models would be immediately useful to synchrotron users.
  • The reliance on simulated Materials Project spectra means the models learn that simulation's physics; cross-validation against experimental spectra would reveal how much of the reported accuracy reflects the simulation code's idiosyncrasies rather than real XAS physics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces XAStruct, a two-pipeline machine learning framework for X-ray absorption spectroscopy. The forward pipeline predicts XANES and EXAFS spectra from crystal graphs using a CHGNet-based GNN encoder followed by a gated MLP head, trained per element-edge-spectrum combination. The inverse pipeline predicts local structural descriptors from K-edge XAFS spectra: coordination number via per-element random forests, nearest-neighbor atom type via per-element gated classifiers, and mean nearest-neighbor distance (MNND) via a single shared-weight SGMLP-convolution model. The system is trained on a Materials Project-derived dataset of roughly 43,000 structures and 120,000 spectra spanning 70+ elements. The central claims are that XAStruct is the first ML approach to predict neighbor atom types directly from XAS spectra and the first generalizable MNND regression model across 70+ elements without element-specific tuning. Reported results include XANES K-edge MAE 0.0537, L-edge 0.0031, EXAFS K-edge 0.0302, MNND MAE 0.0350 Å, and neighbor atom accuracy 92.96%.

Significance. If the dataset and simulation provenance are sound, and if the inverse models are genuinely using spectral features rather than element-identity shortcuts, the paper would make a substantial contribution: it provides a large cross-element dataset, a unified forward/inverse framework, and the first reported cross-element MNND model. The paper has clear strengths: systematic ablations in Table 3, comparisons against multiple GNN baselines and random forests, and element-wise radar plots in the appendix. The authors also explicitly acknowledge several limitations in Section 6, including per-element training for CN and neighbor-atom classification and the closed-set nature of the classification tasks. However, the load-bearing generalization claims rest on unverified simulation details and on the absence of a shortcut-control baseline, so the results as currently presented cannot be taken as evidence of interpretation of real XAS data.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5 (Dataset construction)] The manuscript never specifies how the 120,000 XANES and EXAFS spectra were simulated. There is no mention of the simulation code (e.g., FEFF, FDMNES, or an alternative), the underlying electronic-structure method, the energy grid, the broadening scheme, or the normalization procedure. Because every forward and inverse model is trained and evaluated against these spectra, the reported numbers in Tables 1 and 2 are not interpretable with respect to real XAS measurements, and the work is not reproducible as written. The authors must document the full simulation pipeline, including parameters and version numbers, and ideally release the dataset and simulation scripts.
  2. [§3.3, Eq. (2); §5.2, Table 2] The inverse model receives the absorbing element z and the energy axis e as inputs in addition to the absorption vector x. No baseline or ablation has been run with element-only or energy-axis-only input, nor with the absorption signal shuffled or zeroed. Because MNND and neighbor-species distributions are strongly element-dependent and the edge position is encoded in e, the reported MNND MAE of 0.0350 Å and neighbor atom accuracy of 92.96% could, in principle, be achieved by a model that ignores the spectral shape entirely. This shortcut test is essential to the central claim of predicting structural descriptors 'directly from XAS spectra' and should be reported.
  3. [§5.1, Table 1] The CuXASNet comparison is not controlled. The 0.0391 MAE for CuXASNet is taken from the original paper, which used different data, different energy grids, and different normalization and split protocols. Reporting that number alongside XAStruct's 0.0012 in the same table implies a direct comparison that the manuscript does not support. The authors should either retrain CuXASNet under the identical evaluation protocol used for the other baselines or explicitly state that the comparison is cross-paper and not controlled.
  4. [§5.2 and §6; §5 (data split)] The periodic-table-wide generalization claim is substantially weaker than the abstract and introduction suggest. Section 6 states that CN and neighbor-atom classifiers are trained separately per element, and only the MNND model uses shared weights across all elements. The abstract claim of a generalizable model that 'requires no element-specific tuning' should be restricted to MNND. In addition, the 8:2 random split of the simulated dataset does not control for structural similarity between training and validation materials, so the validation numbers measure interpolation within one simulation distribution, not generalization to unseen chemistries or to experimental spectra.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§5, first paragraph] The text contains a broken cross-reference: 'see Figure ?? and Figure S12'; the figure number should be inserted.
  2. [§4, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) divides by |V| even though the mask m selects only the absorber and its immediate neighbors; clarify whether the intended normalization is the number of masked atoms, sum(m_i), and adjust the formula or description accordingly.
  3. [§5.2, first paragraph] The inverse experiments use only K-edge XAFS because L-edge EXAFS is unavailable; this should be stated at the start of Section 5.2 rather than in passing, since the earlier sections discuss both K and L edges.
  4. [§5.3, Table 3] The row labels 'SwiGLU (use ReLU)' and 'GatedLinear (use nn.Linear)' are ambiguous; make clear that these variants replace the named component with the specified alternative.
  5. [§1 and Reference list] The introduction contains an unresolved citation placeholder '[?]' in the list of AI breakthroughs; the reference should be completed.
  6. [§A.5, Figure S12] The periodic table of model availability does not define the threshold for 'successfully trained and evaluated' coverage; specify the minimum data count or performance criterion used for the green tags.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the forward and inverse tasks are standard supervised mappings trained on independent splits; no claim reduces to its inputs by definition or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's two pipelines are standard supervised learning: fθ maps (G, z, E) to a spectrum and gφ maps (x, z) to (d, c, t), with independent models and an 8:2 split on a simulated dataset. There is no equation in which a predicted quantity is defined in terms of the same quantity, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The inverse task does take the absorbing element z and the energy axis as inputs, so an element-only shortcut is possible; but the paper does not claim element-blind inference, and a model exploiting element identity would be using a legitimate input feature, not satisfying the target by construction. No load-bearing self-citation appears: the GNN backbone (CHGNet) and baselines are external prior work, and the random-forest baselines are independently trained. The stated limitations (per-element CN/neighbor training, closed-set assumptions) are acknowledged and do not constitute a circular derivation. The lack of an element-only or spectrum-ablated baseline is an external-validity and control concern, not circularity. Hence score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claims rest on the simulated dataset, the random split, and transfer of CHGNet features to spectral prediction. No experimental XAS validation is provided, and per-element model coverage is incomplete, so the periodic-table-wide framing depends on an unstated dataset-generation assumption.

free parameters (4)
  • Graph construction spatial cutoff = 6 Angstrom
    Interatomic edges are defined by a 6 Angstrom cutoff; the choice changes the GNN receptive field and is not ablated.
  • Train/validation split ratio = 8:2
    Chosen by hand; no independent test set is reported.
  • Optimizer hyperparameters = AdamW, lr=1e-4, weight decay=0.01
    Fixed for all deep models without reported tuning.
  • Per-element model availability threshold = not stated
    Figure S12 shows gray elements with missing or underdeveloped models, but the criterion for exclusion is not given.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Simulated XAS spectra from Materials Project are sufficiently accurate and consistent across 70+ elements and K/L edges to serve as ground truth.
    All training and validation labels derive from this dataset; no experimental spectra are used to validate the models. Location: Section 5.
  • domain assumption Random 8:2 split prevents near-duplicate structures from appearing in both training and validation.
    No deduplication or structural similarity analysis is described, so reported MAEs may be optimistic if similar structures leak across the split. Location: Section 5.
  • domain assumption CHGNet embeddings, pretrained for energy prediction, transfer to XAS spectral prediction.
    The structure-to-spectrum encoder initializes from CHGNet; no evidence is given that potential-energy features are sufficient for spectral features such as pre-edges and white lines. Location: Section 4.
  • ad hoc to paper Top-1 nearest-neighbor atom type is a meaningful evaluation target for a multi-species local environment.
    The paper acknowledges each spectrum is associated with 2-4 neighbor species but evaluates only the most probable neighbor type, which partially sidesteps the multi-label nature of the inverse problem. Location: Sections 5.2 and A.4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spectra-to-Structure and Structure-to-Spectra Inference Across the Periodic Table." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HZA65O5X

@misc{pith2026250611908,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spectra-to-Structure and Structure-to-Spectra Inference Across the Periodic Table},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HZA65O5X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.11908}
}
read the original abstract

X-ray Absorption Spectroscopy (XAS) is a powerful technique for probing local atomic environments, yet its interpretation remains limited by the need for expert-driven analysis, computationally expensive simulations, and element-specific heuristics. Recent advances in machine learning have shown promise for accelerating XAS interpretation, but many existing models are narrowly focused on specific elements, edge types, or spectral regimes. In this work, we present XAStruct, a learning-based system capable of both predicting XAS spectra from crystal structures and inferring local structural descriptors from XAS input. XAStruct is trained on a large-scale dataset spanning over 70 elements across the periodic table, enabling generalization to a wide variety of chemistries and bonding environments. The framework includes the first machine learning approach for predicting neighbor atom types directly from XAS spectra, as well as a generalizable regression model for mean nearest-neighbor distance that requires no element-specific tuning. By combining deep neural networks for complex structure property mappings with efficient baseline models for simpler tasks, XAStruct offers a scalable and extensible solution for data-driven XAS analysis and local structure inference. The source code will be released upon paper acceptance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.11908 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. X-ray absorption spectrum with XANES (near-edge) and EXAFS (oscillatory) regions. X-ray Absorption Spectroscopy (XAS) is a powerful technique for probing the local electronic and atomic structure of materials. Based on the Beer–Lambert law [28], the attenuation of X-ray intensity is gov￾erned by the linear absorption coefficient µ(E), which depends on photon energy E, sample thick￾ness d, and material composition [2… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Structure to Spectrum: Predicting XANES/EXAFS from Crystal Graph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spectrum to Structure: Predicting CN/MNND/Neighbor Atom from XAFS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Highly sensitive 2d x-ray absorption spectroscopy via physics informed machine learning

    Zeyuan Li, Thomas Flynn, Tongchao Liu, Sizhan Liu, Wah-Keat Lee, Ming Tang, and Mingyuan Ge. Highly sensitive 2d x-ray absorption spectroscopy via physics informed machine learning. npj Computational Materials, 10(1):128, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Characterization of energy materials with x-ray absorption spectroscopy- advantages, challenges, and opportunities

    Brittany V Kerr, Hannah J King, C Felipe Garibello, P Ronali Dissanayake, Alexandr N Simonov, Bernt Johannessen, Daniel S Eldridge, and Rosalie K Hocking. Characterization of energy materials with x-ray absorption spectroscopy- advantages, challenges, and opportunities. Energy & Fuels, 36(5):2369–2389, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Applications of x-ray absorption spectroscopy in materials science: Status and new trends

    B Lengeler. Applications of x-ray absorption spectroscopy in materials science: Status and new trends. Zeitschrift für Physik B Condensed Matter, 61(4):421–427, 1985

    work page 1985

  4. [4]

    Introduction to x-ray absorption spectroscopy and its applications in material science

    Aditya Sharma, Jitendra Pal Singh, Sung Ok Won, Keun Hwa Chae, Surender Kumar Sharma, and Shalendra Kumar. Introduction to x-ray absorption spectroscopy and its applications in material science. Handbook of materials characterization, pages 497–548, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    X-ray absorption and reflection in materials sciences

    Bruno Lengeler. X-ray absorption and reflection in materials sciences. Festkörperprobleme 29: Plenary Lectures of the Divisions Semiconductor Physics Thin Films Dynamics and Statistical Physics Magnetism Metal Physics Surface Physics Low Temperature Physics of the German Physical Society (DPG), Münster, April 3 to 7, 1989, pages 53–73, 1989

    work page 1989

  6. [6]

    The value of synchrotron radiation x-ray techniques to explore microscale chemistry for ecology and evolution research

    James M Dinsley, Helena S Davies, Miguel A Gomez-Gonzalez, Clare H Robinson, and Jon K Pittman. The value of synchrotron radiation x-ray techniques to explore microscale chemistry for ecology and evolution research. Ecosphere, 13(12):e4312, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Assessment of dft methods for transition metals with the tmc151 compilation of data sets and comparison with accuracies for main-group chemistry

    Bun Chan, Peter MW Gill, and Masanari Kimura. Assessment of dft methods for transition metals with the tmc151 compilation of data sets and comparison with accuracies for main-group chemistry. Journal of chemical theory and computation, 15(6):3610–3622, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Parameter-free calculations of x-ray spectra with feff9

    John J Rehr, Joshua J Kas, Fernando D Vila, Micah P Prange, and Kevin Jorissen. Parameter-free calculations of x-ray spectra with feff9. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 12(21):5503– 5513, 2010

    work page 2010

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Improved protein structure prediction using potentials from deep learning

    Andrew W Senior, Richard Evans, John Jumper, James Kirkpatrick, Laurent Sifre, Tim Green, Chongli Qin, Augustin Žídek, Alexander WR Nelson, Alex Bridgland, et al. Improved protein structure prediction using potentials from deep learning. Nature, 577(7792):706–710, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    Highly accurate protein structure prediction with alphafold

    John Jumper, Richard Evans, Alexander Pritzel, Tim Green, Michael Figurnov, Olaf Ron- neberger, Kathryn Tunyasuvunakool, Russ Bates, Augustin Žídek, Anna Potapenko, et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with alphafold. Nature, 596(7873):583–589, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Ballard, Joshua Bambrick, Sebastian W

    Josh Abramson, Jonas Adler, Jack Dunger, Richard Evans, Tim Green, Alexander Pritzel, Olaf Ronneberger, Lindsay Willmore, Andrew J. Ballard, Joshua Bambrick, Sebastian W. Bodenstein, David A. Evans, Chia-Chun Hung, Michael O’Neill, David Reiman, Kathryn Tunyasuvunakool, Zachar...

    2024

  4. [12]

    Screening and diagnosis of cardiovascular disease using artificial intelligence-enabled cardiac magnetic resonance imaging

    Yan-Ran Wang, Kai Yang, Yi Wen, Pengcheng Wang, Yuepeng Hu, Yongfan Lai, Yufeng Wang, Kankan Zhao, Siyi Tang, Angela Zhang, et al. Screening and diagnosis of cardiovascular disease using artificial intelligence-enabled cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Nature Medicine, pages...

    2024

  5. [13]

    Artificial intelligence versus clinicians in disease diagnosis: systematic review

    Jiayi Shen, Casper JP Zhang, Bangsheng Jiang, Jiebin Chen, Jian Song, Zherui Liu, Zonglin He, Sum Yi Wong, Po-Han Fang, Wai-Kit Ming, et al. Artificial intelligence versus clinicians in disease diagnosis: systematic review. JMIR medical informatics, 7(3):e10010, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    Artificial intelligence in disease diagnosis: a systematic literature review, synthesizing framework and future research agenda

    Yogesh Kumar, Apeksha Koul, Ruchi Singla, and Muhammad Fazal Ijaz. Artificial intelligence in disease diagnosis: a systematic literature review, synthesizing framework and future research agenda. Journal of ambient intelligence and humanized computing, 14(7):8459–8486, 2023. 10

    2023

  7. [15]

    Gravita- tionally lensed black hole emission tomography

    Aviad Levis, Pratul P Srinivasan, Andrew A Chael, Ren Ng, and Katherine L Bouman. Gravita- tionally lensed black hole emission tomography. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 19841–19850, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Integrating explainability into graph neural network models for the prediction of x-ray absorption spectra

    Amir Kotobi, Kanishka Singh, Daniel Hoche, Sadia Bari, Robert H Meißner, and Annika Bande. Integrating explainability into graph neural network models for the prediction of x-ray absorption spectra. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 145(41):22584–22598, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Cuxasnet: Rapid and accurate prediction of copper l-edge x-ray absorption spectra using machine learning

    Samuel P Gleason, Matthew R Carbone, Deyu Lu, and Jim Ciston. Cuxasnet: Rapid and accurate prediction of copper l-edge x-ray absorption spectra using machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.02916, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Machine-learning x-ray absorption spectra to quantitative accuracy

    Matthew R Carbone, Mehmet Topsakal, Deyu Lu, and Shinjae Yoo. Machine-learning x-ray absorption spectra to quantitative accuracy. Physical review letters, 124(15):156401, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Random forest models for accurate identification of coordination environments from x-ray absorption near-edge structure

    Chen Zheng, Chi Chen, Yiming Chen, and Shyue Ping Ong. Random forest models for accurate identification of coordination environments from x-ray absorption near-edge structure. Patterns, 1(2), 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Random forest machine learning models for interpretable x-ray absorption near-edge structure spectrum-property relationships

    Steven B Torrisi, Matthew R Carbone, Brian A Rohr, Joseph H Montoya, Yang Ha, Junko Yano, Santosh K Suram, and Linda Hung. Random forest machine learning models for interpretable x-ray absorption near-edge structure spectrum-property relationships. npj Computational Materials,...

    2020

  13. [21]

    Chgnet as a pretrained universal neural network potential for charge-informed atomistic modelling

    Bowen Deng, Peichen Zhong, KyuJung Jun, Janosh Riebesell, Kevin Han, Christopher J Bartel, and Gerbrand Ceder. Chgnet as a pretrained universal neural network potential for charge-informed atomistic modelling. Nature Machine Intelligence, 5(9):1031–1041, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Classification of local chem- ical environments from x-ray absorption spectra using supervised machine learning

    Matthew R Carbone, Shinjae Yoo, Mehmet Topsakal, and Deyu Lu. Classification of local chem- ical environments from x-ray absorption spectra using supervised machine learning. Physical Review Materials, 3(3):033604, 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    A graph neural network-based approach to xanes data analysis

    Fei Zhan, Haodong Yao, Zhi Geng, Lirong Zheng, Can Yu, Xue Han, Xueqi Song, Shuguang Chen, and Haifeng Zhao. A graph neural network-based approach to xanes data analysis. The Journal of Physical Chemistry A, 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    Pyfitit: The software for quantitative analysis of xanes spectra using machine-learning algorithms

    Andrea Martini, SA Guda, AA Guda, G Smolentsev, Alexander Algasov, Oleg Usoltsev, Mikhail A Soldatov, Aram Bugaev, Yu Rusalev, Carlo Lamberti, et al. Pyfitit: The software for quantitative analysis of xanes spectra using machine-learning algorithms. Computer Physics Communicat...

    2020

  17. [25]

    Understand- ing x-ray absorption spectra by means of descriptors and machine learning algorithms

    Alexander A Guda, Sergey A Guda, Andrea Martini, AN Kravtsova, Alexander Algasov, Aram Bugaev, Stanislav P Kubrin, LV Guda, Petr Šot, Jeroen A van Bokhoven, et al. Understand- ing x-ray absorption spectra by means of descriptors and machine learning algorithms. npj Computation...

    2021

  18. [26]

    Tanaporn Na Narong, Zoe N Zachko, Steven B Torrisi, and Simon JL Billinge. Multi-modal machine learning analysis of x-ray absorption near-edge spectra and pair distribution functions: Performance and interpretability towards experimental design.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.17467, 2024

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    Fitit: New software to extract structural information on the basis of xanes fitting

    Grigory Smolentsev and Alexander V Soldatov. Fitit: New software to extract structural information on the basis of xanes fitting. Computational materials science, 39(3):569–574, 2007

    2007

  20. [28]

    Essai d’Optique, sur la gradation de la lumiere

    Pierre Bouguer. Essai d’Optique, sur la gradation de la lumiere. Claude Jombert, 1729

  21. [29]

    In situ/operando electrocatalyst characterization by x-ray absorption spectroscopy

    Janis Timoshenko and Beatriz Roldan Cuenya. In situ/operando electrocatalyst characterization by x-ray absorption spectroscopy. Chemical reviews, 121(2):882–961, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Fundamentals of xafs

    Matthew Newville. Fundamentals of xafs. Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, 78(1):33– 74, 2014

    2014

  23. [31]

    Random forests

    Leo Breiman. Random forests. Machine learning, 45:5–32, 2001

    2001

  24. [32]

    A complete overhaul of the electron energy-loss spectroscopy and x-ray absorption spectroscopy database: eelsdb

    Philip Ewels, Thierry Sikora, Virginie Serin, Chris P Ewels, and Luc Lajaunie. A complete overhaul of the electron energy-loss spectroscopy and x-ray absorption spectroscopy database: eelsdb. eu. Microscopy and Microanalysis, 22(3):717–724, 2016. 11

    2016

  25. [33]

    Database of ab initio l-edge x-ray absorption near edge structure

    Yiming Chen, Chi Chen, Chen Zheng, Shyam Dwaraknath, Matthew K Horton, Jordi Cabana, John Rehr, John Vinson, Alan Dozier, Joshua J Kas, et al. Database of ab initio l-edge x-ray absorption near edge structure. Scientific data, 8(1):153, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Commentary: The materials project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation

    Anubhav Jain, Shyue Ping Ong, Geoffroy Hautier, Wei Chen, William Davidson Richards, Stephen Dacek, Shreyas Cholia, Dan Gunter, David Skinner, Gerbrand Ceder, et al. Commentary: The materials project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation. APL materi...

    2013

  27. [35]

    Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks

    Thomas N Kipf and Max Welling. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Graph attention networks

    Petar Veliˇckovi´c, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Lio, and Yoshua Bengio. Graph attention networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Neural message passing for quantum chemistry

    Justin Gilmer, Samuel S Schoenholz, Patrick F Riley, Oriol Vinyals, and George E Dahl. Neural message passing for quantum chemistry. In International conference on machine learning , pages 1263–1272. PMLR, 2017

    2017

  30. [38]

    Exafs analysis using feff and feffit

    Matthew Newville. Exafs analysis using feff and feffit. Synchrotron Radiation, 8(2):96–100, 2001

    2001

  31. [39]

    Ifeffit: interactive xafs analysis and feff fitting

    Matthew Newville. Ifeffit: interactive xafs analysis and feff fitting. Synchrotron Radiation, 8(2):322–324, 2001

    2001

  32. [40]

    edge position

    O Bun ˘au, Aline Y Ramos, and Yves Joly. The fdmnes code. 2024. 12 A Appendix A.1 XAFS Theoretical Background Figure S1: Example of the XAFS spectrum[29]. Figure S1 presents a typical Cu K-edge X-ray absorption spectrum, illustrating the fundamental decomposition of the total ...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.