Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 64 references

A hierarchical AI pipeline combining a diffusion-based crystal generator, a machine-learning potential prescreen, and density functional theory validation identifies 264 new electron-rich compounds, including 13 thermodynamically stable ino

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review

2026-08-03 07:06 UTC pith:A5UI2JF3

load-bearing objection The pipeline and the four below-hull phases are the real content; the headline "264 new" needs a counting and overlap audit before it becomes a deliverable. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.21077 v2 pith:A5UI2JF3 submitted 2026-01-28 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.chem-phphysics.comp-ph

Accelerated Inorganic Electrides Discovery by Generative Models and Hierarchical Screening

Shuo Tao , Qiang Zhu This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.chem-phphysics.comp-ph
keywords electridesgenerative modelsmachine learning potentialshigh-throughput screeningdensity functional theoryconvex hullinterstitial electronscrystal structure prediction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that coupling physical heuristics with generative AI and machine-learning potentials can systematically discover rare inorganic electrides at a fraction of the usual computational cost. Restricting the search to electron-rich compositions of electropositive metals, the authors generate candidate structures with a diffusion model, presecreen them with a machine-learning potential, and validate survivors with density functional theory. They report 264 new compounds within 0.05 eV/atom of the thermodynamic hull, 13 of them stable electrides, several lying below the previously known convex hull. The work matters because electrides are promising for catalysis, electron emission, and topological applications, yet only a handful were known; this pipeline roughly doubles the computed candidate pool.

Core claim

The central claim is that a staged workflow—chemical-space restriction, generative structure sampling, machine-learning-potential prescreening, and two-stage DFT validation—can efficiently and reliably expand the known electride landscape. Applying this to 1,510 binary and 6,654 ternary compositions, the authors identify 264 electron-rich compounds with DFT hull energies below 0.05 eV/atom, including 13 thermodynamically stable electrides. Notable phases include hP16-Ca5P3 (0.201 eV/atom below the original Materials Project hull), hR51-Y9N8 (0.036 eV/atom below hull), tP11-Cs4Al3P4, and hP11-K6BO4. The paper also argues that the machine-learning prescreen, despite imperfect correlation on hu

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is the hierarchical screening pipeline: (1) restrict compositions to those with 0 < N_excess ≤ 4 (binary) or ≤ 2 (ternary) excess valence electrons from electropositive metals; (2) generate structures using a diffusion-based generative model; (3) relax and prescreen with a machine-learning interatomic potential, keeping structures below 0.10 eV/atom above the reference hull; (4) relax with DFT and identify electride character via electron localization function (ELF) maxima and Bader volumes ≥ 20 ų for interstitial electron basins in at least three partial charge densities near the Fermi level; (5) refine the most promising candidates with accurate DFT to obtain final hull

Load-bearing premise

The entire pipeline rests on the assumption that the machine-learning potential prescreen passes along nearly all genuinely low-energy electride candidates; if it overestimates a candidate's hull energy above the 0.10 eV/atom cutoff, that structure is discarded before DFT and never enters the final count.

What would settle it

Take a random sample of structures rejected by the ML prescreen (those with E_ref-hull-MLP > 0.10 eV/atom) and compute their DFT hull energies; if a meaningful fraction fall below 0.05 eV/atom, the claimed 264 is incomplete and the stability statistics are biased. Alternatively, re-evaluate the 13 stable candidates with a different functional (e.g., SCAN or HSE) or attempt synthesis of hP16-Ca5P3; if appreciable decomposition or a large energy shift occurs, the below-hull claims fail.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The computed electride candidate pool roughly doubles, giving experimentalists dozens of new synthesis targets, especially the 13 thermodynamically stable phases.
  • Phonon calculations show that 11 of the 13 stable candidates have no imaginary frequencies, suggesting they are dynamically stable and potentially synthesizable.
  • The discovery of hP16-Ca5P3 and other phases below the existing convex hull indicates that database-mining approaches missed stable compounds that generative methods can recover.
  • The workflow's computational speedup (thousands of compositions screened with ~1,000 GPU hours for generation plus ML prescreening) makes targeted exploration of other rare functional materials feasible.
  • The observation that most candidates have N_excess = 1 suggests restricting to lower excess-electron counts could improve screening efficiency for future searches.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the ML prescreen's false-negative rate is nontrivial, the 264 count is a lower bound on the true candidate pool; structures overestimated above the 0.10 eV/atom cutoff silently vanish before DFT. Re-running the pipeline with a lower prescreen threshold or an ensemble of potentials could recover some misses.
  • The paper's finding that two excess electrons produce fully filled interstitial bands and semiconducting electrides (e.g., mS26-Cs6Al2S5) implies that targeted searches at N_excess = 2 could be a practical route to semiconducting electrides for device applications.
  • The generative approach may be extended to quaternary compositions or to include transition metals beyond Sc and Y; the physical-principle constraint is a design choice, not a hard limit, so relaxing it could uncover electrides in less electropositive environments.
  • The weak MLP-vs-DFT hull-energy correlation (R ≈ 0.48 binary, 0.70 ternary) suggests that the prescreen's role is more about cheaply removing obviously unstable structures than about precise ranking; future work could combine multiple ML potentials to improve recall.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a high-throughput computational pipeline for discovering inorganic electrides. The workflow restricts the search space to electron-rich binary and ternary compositions of electropositive metals with nonmetals, uses the MatterGen diffusion model to generate candidate structures, relaxes and prescreens them with the MatterSim machine-learned potential against Materials Project reference hulls, and then validates survivors with two stages of DFT (coarse and refined PBE/PAW) combined with ELF/PARCHG/Bader analyses of interstitial electron localization. The headline deliverable is a set of 264 DFT-validated low-energy electride candidates within 0.05 eV/atom of the convex hull (232 binary, 32 ternary), including 13 thermodynamically stable electrides, with four representative new stable phases highlighted: hP16-Ca5P3, hR51-Y9N8, tP11-Cs4Al3P4, and hP11-K6BO4. The paper also validates that MatterSim absolute energies correlate well with DFT, while hull-energy correlations are weaker, and it argues that the MLP prescreen is biased toward underestimating hull energies, so it is unlikely to discard promising candidates. Code and interactive data are made publicly available.

Significance. If the candidate set and the novelty claim hold, this would be a substantial expansion of the known inorganic electride landscape and a useful demonstration that generative models plus ML potentials can explore thousands of compositions with a DFT-quality final filter. The manuscript has clear strengths: the DFT stage uses standard, publicly benchmarked settings (VASP/PBE/PAW, Materials Project hulls), the final energetics are compared against an external parameter-free reference, and the authors provide code and the candidate set online, making the central energetic claims falsifiable and reusable. The reported Ca5P3 and Y9N8 phases lying below the prior Materials Project hull, if confirmed, are chemically interesting. However, the usefulness of the deliverable depends on three currently unresolved points: internal count consistency, quantitative novelty against the authors' own prior 167-candidate list and Burton et al.'s 65 candidates, and a quantified estimate of the MLP prescreen's false-negative rate. These are fixable with additional analysis, so the manuscript merits a major revision rather than rejection.

major comments (4)
  1. [Stage 2 / §III.A / §III.B / Stage 4] The headline count '264' is not internally reproducible. Stage 4 and §III.A give 232 binary + 32 ternary = 264, but §III.B's first sentence reports '263 low-energy candidates with E_hull-DFT < 0.05 eV/atom' for the binary set alone, which is the same threshold. In addition, Stage 2 reports 17,575 binary and 20,644 ternary structures surviving the MLP prescreen, while §III.A states the same stage reduces the pools to 17,195 binary and 18,705 ternary. These are not small rounding differences. The authors should provide a single audited table with per-stage counts for binary and ternary pipelines, resolve the 263/264 discrepancy, and make the final composition list available in the supplement so that the deliverable is exactly reproducible.
  2. [Abstract / §IV / refs [32,34]] The word 'new' is load-bearing in the abstract and conclusion, but the manuscript never quantifies the overlap between the 264 candidates and previously published electride candidate lists: Burton et al.'s 65 candidates (ref 32) and Zhu et al.'s 167 candidates (ref 34, which shares a senior author with this work). The text even notes 're-discovery of existing knowledge' in the Ca-P system, so an overlap clearly exists. The authors should report the number of compounds that appear in either earlier list, define 'new' precisely (e.g., absent from Materials Project and from previous electride screenings), and adjust the headline count if overlap is substantial.
  3. [§III.A / Fig. 2] The most critical assumption—that the MLP prescreen preserves genuinely promising candidates—is only argued by the direction of the hull-energy bias, not quantified. Fig. 2 shows weak hull-energy correlation (R = 0.4755 binary, 0.6988 ternary; MAE ≈ 0.066 eV/atom), and the 0.10 eV/atom MLP cutoff is only about 1.5 MAE above the final 0.05 eV/atom DFT criterion. A candidate with true DFT hull just below 0.05 eV/atom could easily be filtered out by the MLP if its error is on the order of the MAE. The authors should report false-negative statistics, e.g., how many DFT-validated candidates had MLP hull energies above 0.10 eV/atom, and ideally a recall estimate based on DFT-relaxing a random sample of discarded structures. Without this, the completeness of the 264 set and the generalizability of the workflow to other chemical spaces are not established.
  4. [Stage 3 §II / §III.D] The electride classification depends on an ad hoc criterion: Bader interstitial volumes ≥ 20 Å3 in at least three of five PARCHG windows. The manuscript provides no sensitivity analysis or physical justification for the 20 Å3 threshold or the requirement of three windows. Because this filter defines the 264-candidate set and the 13 stable electrides, the authors should show how many candidates lie near the threshold and whether the final count is stable under reasonable variations (e.g., 15 or 25 Å3, two or four windows). This is a minor addition that would significantly strengthen confidence in the electronic-structure screening stage.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract / Conclusion] The abstract calls the 264 compounds 'electron rich compounds' while the conclusion and §III.D call them 'electride candidates.' These terms are not interchangeable; please use consistent terminology throughout, or explicitly state that all 264 passed both the thermodynamic and interstitial-electron filters.
  2. [Fig. 2] The text reports MAE and R values for E_hull, but these are not shown in the figure panels. Adding the metrics to the panels would make the weak hull correlation immediately visible to the reader.
  3. [§III.B] The sentence 'our search supplements 3 new candidates with E_hull-DFT <0.10 eV/atom' uses a 0.10 eV/atom cutoff, while the paper's final threshold is 0.05 eV/atom. Clarify whether these 3 are all below 0.05 or include metastable candidates up to 0.10, to avoid confusion with the headline criterion.
  4. [§II Stage 3] The coarse DFT relaxation uses ISIF=2, which keeps the cell shape and volume fixed during ionic relaxation. Since MatterGen-generated cells may be far from equilibrium, the authors should state whether the final Stage 4 relaxation uses variable-cell settings (e.g., ISIF=3) and whether any candidates were lost because the Stage 3 cell constraint prevented convergence.
  5. [§III.B / §III.C] For the Y-N system, the text says '7 candidates with a narrow range of E_hull-DFT ≤0.02 eV/atom' but then discusses only some of them; a summary table listing all 7 with prototype and space group would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: headline DFT hull energetics are externally benchmarked; MLP prescreen is an acknowledged completeness assumption, and self-citations supply methods rather than the result.

full rationale

The paper's headline claims—264 compounds within 0.05 eV/atom of the convex hull and 13 thermodynamically stable electrides—are evaluated with PBE-DFT (VASP) against Materials Project reference hulls, an external, parameter-free benchmark. No fitted parameter from the present workflow enters those final hull energies. MatterGen and MatterSim are screening tools whose outputs are revalidated by DFT; the paper explicitly acknowledges the MLP hull-energy correlation is imperfect (R=0.4755/0.6988, MAE≈0.066 eV/atom) and states in Section III.A that 'the most critical assumption is that our MLP prescreen can effectively discard unstable structures while preserving the vast majority of genuinely promising candidates.' That is a real completeness/false-negative risk, but it concerns the unfound set, not a circular derivation of the found set. The reuse of the authors' prior electride-characterization methodology (ref. 34) and high-throughput framework (ref. 40) is self-citation, but it supplies an independent descriptor definition (ELF maxima and Bader volume thresholds) that is not fitted to this paper's target results, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked to force the conclusions. Non-circular correctness concerns—the 263-vs-264 count discrepancy between Sections III.B and III.A and the lack of overlap quantification against prior 65/167 candidate lists—are reproducibility and validation issues, not evidence that the derivation reduces to its inputs. Therefore no significant circularity is found.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities; interstitial anionic electrons are the pre-existing object of study. The effective free parameters are hand-chosen screening thresholds, all stated explicitly. The most consequential modeling choice is the composition-space restriction via empirical valence states, which determines the entire search space; the most fragile is the MLP hull prescreen, whose weak hull correlation (R=0.4755 binary) is mitigated only by an argued bias direction.

free parameters (5)
  • Interstitial Bader volume threshold = 20 ų
    Hand-chosen cutoff defining 'high-quality electride' in Stage 3; the count of 264 candidates depends directly on it.
  • Minimum PARCHG windows with interstitial basins = 3 of 5 (e0.025, e0.5, e1.0, band0, band1)
    Hand-chosen criterion inherited from the group's prior electride workflow; gates which compounds reach Stage 4.
  • MLP prescreen hull cutoff = 0.10 eV/atom
    Screening threshold; the paper argues MatterSim's underestimation bias makes this conservative for finding low-hull candidates, but no false-negative rate is given.
  • DFT final hull cutoff = 0.05 eV/atom
    Metastability convention from Sun et al. 2016 (ref 62); defines the reported 264-member set.
  • MatterGen generation attempts per composition = 2 × N_atoms per cell
    Sampling budget chosen to balance coverage and cost; the total of 364,364 generated structures scales from it.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption PBE/PAW DFT (VASP) energies are the ground truth for thermodynamic stability ranking.
    Used throughout Stages 3–4 for hull evaluation; standard in the field but a functional-approximation choice.
  • domain assumption Materials Project reference hulls are the stability standard, including for declaring phases below the 'original' hull.
    Invoked in Stages 2 and 4; hull completeness is assumed, so unexplored competing phases could shift reported hull energies.
  • domain assumption MatterSim relaxations and hull predictions are near-DFT for the screening purpose.
    The paper's own Fig. 2 shows E_hull correlation R=0.4755 (binary) and 0.6988 (ternary); the assumption is load-bearing for the prescreen.
  • domain assumption MatterGen retrained on mp_20 proposes a representative sample of low-energy structures for the targeted compositions.
    The generative stage is unvalidated against known ground-truth structures in this paper; completeness of the proposed pool is assumed.
  • domain assumption Interstitial electron localization (ELF maxima + Bader volume ≥20 ų in ≥3 of 5 PARCHG windows) identifies electrides.
    Descriptor criteria inherited from refs 34/40; defines the dependent variable of the whole screen.
  • ad hoc to paper Empirical integer valence states define N_excess, and 0<N_excess≤4 (binary) / ≤2 (ternary) covers the electride-forming space.
    A physical-prior restriction that determines the entire search space of 1,510 binary + 6,654 ternary compositions.
  • domain assumption E_hull ≤0.05 eV/atom implies plausible synthetic accessibility.
    Standard metastability convention (Sun et al.), but it does not guarantee synthesizability.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12158 in / 16516 out tokens · 171582 ms · 2026-08-03T07:06:26.737708+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Electrides are exotic compounds in which excess electrons occupy interstitial regions of the crystal lattice and serve as anions, exhibiting exceptional properties such as low work function, high electron mobility, and strong catalytic activity. Although they show promise for diverse applications, identifying new electrides remains challenging due to the difficulty of achieving energetically favorable electron localization in crystal cavities. Here, we present an accelerated materials discovery framework that combines physical principles, diffusion-based materials generation with hierarchical thermodynamic and electronic structure screening. Using this workflow, we systematically explored 1,510 binary and 6,654 ternary chemical compositions containing excess valence electrons from electropositive alkaline, alkaline-earth, and early transition metals, and then filtered them with a high throughput validation on both thermodynamical stability and electronic structure analysis. As a result, we have identified 264 new electron rich compounds within 0.05 eV/atom above the convex hull at the density functional theory (DFT) level, including 13 thermodynamically stable electrides. Our approach demonstrates a generalizable strategy for targeted materials discovery in a vast chemical space.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.21077 by Qiang Zhu, Shuo Tao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The workflow for accelerated electride discovery combining physical principles, generative modeling ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Validation of MLP Energy used in the screening workflow for (a) binary and (b) ternary systems, respectively. In both plots, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Convex hulls and new phases for (a) Ca-P and (b) Y-N systems. Top panels show the Materials Project (black circles) and newly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Ternary convex hulls and new phases for (a) Cs-Al-P and (b) K-B-O systems. Top panels: dashed black lines indicate original convex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Electronic structures of two representative stable ternary electrides: (a) hP11-K [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    J. L. Dye, Science247, 663 (1990)

    1990

  2. [2]

    J. L. Dye, Acc. Chem. Res.42, 1564 (2009)

    2009

  3. [3]

    S. B. Dawes, D. L. Ward, R. H. Huang, and J. L. Dye, J. Am. Chem. Soc.108, 3534 (1986)

    1986

  4. [4]

    Hosono and M

    H. Hosono and M. Kitano, Chem. Rev.121, 3121 (2021)

    2021

  5. [5]

    R. H. Huang, M. K. Faber, K. J. Moeggenborg, D. L. Ward, and J. L. Dye, Nature331, 599 (1988)

    1988

  6. [6]

    D. J. Singh, H. Krakauer, C. Haas, and W. E. Pickett, Nature 365, 39 (1993)

    1993

  7. [7]

    L. D. Le, D. Issa, B. Van Eck, and J. L. Dye, J. Phys. Chem.86, 7 (1982)

    1982

  8. [8]

    Matsuishi, Y

    S. Matsuishi, Y . Toda, M. Miyakawa, K. Hayashi, T. Kamiya, M. Hirano, I. Tanaka, and H. Hosono, Science301, 626 (2003)

    2003

  9. [9]

    Kitano, Y

    M. Kitano, Y . Inoue, Y . Yamazaki, F. Hayashi, S. Kan- bara, S. Matsuishi, T. Yokoyama, S.-W. Kim, M. Hara, and H. Hosono, Nat. Chem.4, 934 (2012)

    2012

  10. [10]

    Kanbara, M

    S. Kanbara, M. Kitano, Y . Inoue, T. Yokoyama, M. Hara, and H. Hosono, J. Am. Chem. Soc.137, 14517 (2015). 10

    2015

  11. [11]

    Kitano, S

    M. Kitano, S. Kanbara, Y . Inoue, N. Kuganathan, P. V . Sushko, T. Yokoyama, M. Hara, and H. Hosono, Nat. Comm.6, 6731 (2015)

    2015

  12. [12]

    Drobny, K

    C. Drobny, K. Wätzig, A. Rost, and M. Tajmar, Acta Astronaut. 214, 231 (2024)

    2024

  13. [13]

    S. Zhao, E. Kan, and Z. Li, WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci.6, 430 (2016)

    2016

  14. [14]

    C. Liu, S. A. Nikolaev, W. Ren, and L. A. Burton, J. Mater. Chem. C8, 10551 (2020)

    2020

  15. [15]

    K. Lee, S. W. Kim, Y . Toda, S. Matsuishi, and H. Hosono, Na- ture494, 336 (2013)

    2013

  16. [16]

    D. L. Druffel, K. L. Kuntz, A. H. Woomer, F. M. Alcorn, J. Hu, C. L. Donley, and S. C. Warren, J. Am. Chem. Soc.138, 16089 (2016)

    2016

  17. [17]

    T. Tada, S. Takemoto, S. Matsuishi, and H. Hosono, Inorg. Chem.53, 10347 (2014)

    2014

  18. [18]

    W. Ming, M. Yoon, M.-H. Du, K. Lee, and S. W. Kim, J. Am. Chem. Soc.138, 15336 (2016)

    2016

  19. [19]

    Zhang, H

    Y . Zhang, H. Wang, Y . Wang, L. Zhang, and Y . Ma, Phys. Rev. X7, 011017 (2017)

    2017

  20. [20]

    J. Wang, K. Hanzawa, H. Hiramatsu, J. Kim, N. Umezawa, K. Iwanaka, T. Tada, and H. Hosono, J. Am. Chem. Soc.139, 15668 (2017)

    2017

  21. [21]

    Y . Lu, J. Li, T. Tada, Y . Toda, S. Ueda, T. Yokoyama, M. Kitano, and H. Hosono, J. Am. Chem. Soc.138, 3970 (2016)

    2016

  22. [22]

    Zhang, B

    Y . Zhang, B. Wang, Z. Xiao, Y . Lu, T. Kamiya, Y . Uwatoko, H. Kageyama, and H. Hosono, npj Quant Mater2, 45 (2017)

    2017

  23. [23]

    Zhang, Z

    Y . Zhang, Z. Xiao, T. Kamiya, and H. Hosono, J. Phys. Chem. Lett.6, 4966 (2015)

    2015

  24. [24]

    Hirayama, S

    M. Hirayama, S. Matsuishi, H. Hosono, and S. Murakami, Phys. Rev. X8, 031067 (2018)

    2018

  25. [25]

    C. Park, S. W. Kim, and M. Yoon, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 026401 (2018)

    2018

  26. [26]

    Huang, K.-H

    H. Huang, K.-H. Jin, S. Zhang, and F. Liu, Nano Lett.18, 1972 (2018)

    1972

  27. [27]

    Y . Ma, M. Eremets, A. R. Oganov, Y . Xie, I. Trojan, S. Medvedev, A. O. Lyakhov, M. Valle, and V . Prakapenka, Na- ture458, 182 (2009)

    2009

  28. [28]

    Miao and R

    M.-S. Miao and R. Hoffmann, Acc. Chem. Res.47, 1311 (2014)

    2014

  29. [29]

    Miao and R

    M.-S. Miao and R. Hoffmann, J. Am. Chem. Soc.137, 3631 (2015)

    2015

  30. [30]

    B. Wan, J. Zhang, L. Wu, and H. Gou, Chinese Phys. B28, 106201 (2019)

    2019

  31. [31]

    I. I. Naumov and R. J. Hemley, Phys. Rev. B96, 035421 (2017)

    2017

  32. [32]

    L. A. Burton, F. Ricci, W. Chen, G.-M. Rignanese, and G. Hau- tier, Chem. Mater.30, 7521 (2018)

    2018

  33. [33]

    J. Zhou, L. Shen, M. Yang, H. Cheng, W. Kong, and Y . P. Feng, Chem. Mater.31, 1860 (2019)

    2019

  34. [34]

    Q. Zhu, T. Frolov, and K. Choudhary, Matter1, 1293 (2019)

    2019

  35. [35]

    J. Wang, Q. Zhu, Z. Wang, and H. Hosono, Phys. Rev. B99, 064104 (2019)

    2019

  36. [36]

    Inoshita, S

    T. Inoshita, S. Jeong, N. Hamada, and H. Hosono, Phys. Rev. X 4, 031023 (2014)

    2014

  37. [37]

    L. M. McRae, R. C. Radomsky, J. T. Pawlik, D. L. Druffel, J. D. Sundberg, M. G. Lanetti, C. L. Donley, K. L. White, and S. C. Warren, J. Am. Chem. Soc.144, 10862 (2022)

    2022

  38. [38]

    B. Kang, K. Parrish, and Q. Zhu, J. Phys. Chem. C127, 18745 (2023)

    2023

  39. [39]

    C. Liu, M. M. Mukta, B. Kang, and Q. Zhu, ACS omega10, 1635 (2025)

    2025

  40. [40]

    S.-C. Zhu, L. Wang, J.-Y . Qu, J.-J. Wang, T. Frolov, X.-Q. Chen, and Q. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Mater.3, 024205 (2019)

    2019

  41. [41]

    Chanhom, K

    P. Chanhom, K. E. Fritz, L. A. Burton, J. Kloppenburg, Y . Fil- inchuk, A. Senyshyn, M. Wang, Z. Feng, N. Insin, J. Suntivich, et al., J. Am. Chem. Soc.141, 10595 (2019)

    2019

  42. [42]

    Merchant, S

    A. Merchant, S. Batzner, S. S. Schoenholz, M. Aykol, G. Cheon, and E. D. Cubuk, Nature624, 80 (2023)

    2023

  43. [43]

    C. Zeni, R. Pinsler, D. Zügner, A. Fowler, M. Horton, X. Fu, Z. Wang, A. Shysheya, J. Crabbé, S. Ueda, et al., Nature639, 624–632 (2025)

    2025

  44. [44]

    R. Jiao, W. Huang, P. Lin, J. Han, P. Chen, Y . Lu, and Y . Liu, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, V ol. 36, edited by A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Globerson, K. Saenko, M. Hardt, and S. Levine (Curran Associates, Inc., 2023) pp. 17464–17497

    2023

  45. [45]

    D. Levy, S. S. Panigrahi, S.-O. Kaba, Q. Zhu, M. Galkin, S. Miret, and S. Ravanbakhsh, in AI for Accelerated Materials Design - NeurIPS 2024 (2024)

    2024

  46. [46]

    B. K. Miller, R. T. Q. Chen, A. Sriram, and B. M. Wood, in Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning (2024)

    2024

  47. [47]

    H. Yang, C. Hu, Y . Zhou, X. Liu, Y . Shi, J. Li, G. Li, Z. Chen, S. Chen, C. Zeni, M. Horton, R. Pinsler, A. Fowler, D. Zügner, T. Xie, J. Smith, L. Sun, Q. Wang, L. Kong, C. Liu, H. Hao, and Z. Lu, arXiv preprint 10.48550/arXiv.2405.04967 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.04967 2024

  48. [48]

    Batatia, P

    I. Batatia, P. Benner, Y . Chiang, A. M. Elena, D. P. Kovács, J. Riebesell, X. R. Advincula, M. Asta, M. Avaylon, W. J. Bald- win, et al., J. Chem. Phys.163, 10.1063/5.0297006 (2025)

    doi:10.1063/5.0297006 2025

  49. [49]

    B. M. Wood, M. Dzamba, X. Fu, M. Gao, M. Shuaibi, L. Barroso-Luque, K. Abdelmaqsoud, V . Gharakhanyan, J. R. Kitchin, D. S. Levine, et al., arXiv preprint 10.48550/arXiv.2506.23971 (2025)

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.23971 2025

  50. [50]

    A. K. Cheetham and R. Seshadri, Chem. Mater.36, 3490 (2024)

    2024

  51. [51]

    Ghafarollahi and M

    A. Ghafarollahi and M. J. Buehler, arXiv preprint 10.48550/arXiv.2508.02956 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.02956 2025

  52. [52]

    L. Guo, Y . Liu, Z. Chen, H. Yang, D. Donadio, and B. Cao, npj Comput. Mater.11, 97 (2025)

    2025

  53. [53]

    X. Dong, A. R. Oganov, H. Cui, X.-F. Zhou, and H.-T. Wang, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.119, e2117416119 (2022)

    2022

  54. [54]

    Fredericks, K

    S. Fredericks, K. Parrish, D. Sayre, and Q. Zhu, Comput. Phys. Commun.261, 107810 (2021)

    2021

  55. [55]

    S. P. Ong, W. D. Richards, A. Jain, G. Hautier, M. Kocher, S. Cholia, D. Gunter, V . L. Chevrier, K. A. Persson, and G. Ceder, Comput. Mater. Sci.68, 314 (2013)

    2013

  56. [56]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthmüller, Phys. Rev. B54, 11169 (1996)

    1996

  57. [57]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  58. [58]

    P. E. Blöchl, Phys. Rev. B50, 17953 (1994)

    1994

  59. [59]

    Henkelman, A

    G. Henkelman, A. Arnaldsson, and H. Jonsson, Comput. Mater. Sci.36, 354 (2006)

    2006

  60. [60]

    A. H. Larsen, J. J. Mortensen, J. Blomqvist, I. E. Castelli, R. Christensen, M. Dułak, J. Friis, M. N. Groves, B. Hammer, C. Hargus, et al., J. Phys.: Condens. Matter29, 273002 (2017)

    2017

  61. [61]

    A. Togo, F. Oba, and I. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. B78, 134106 (2008)

    2008

  62. [62]

    W. Sun, S. T. Dacek, S. P. Ong, G. Hautier, A. Jain, W. D. Richards, A. C. Gamst, K. A. Persson, and G. Ceder, Sci. Adv. 2, e1600225 (2016)

    2016

  63. [63]

    (2026), see Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/**** for additional convex hull analyses of binary and ternary sys- tems and phonon calculations of selected thermodynamically stable structures that have not been included in the main text

    2026

  64. [64]

    X. Yang, K. Parrish, Y .-L. Li, B. Sa, H. Zhan, and Q. Zhu, Phys. Rev. B103, 125103 (2021)

    2021

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.