pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.29821 · v1 · pith:O5DTCG5Anew · submitted 2026-05-28 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Accelerated Discovery of Nitrogen-Coordinated Dual-Atom Hydrogen Evolution Reaction Electrocatalysts via Machine Learning Potentials

Yanmei Zang , Hyun Gyu Park , Gi Beom Sim , Tae Hyeon Park , Ho Jin Lee , Xiaorong Zou , D. ChangMo Yang , Soohaeng Yoo Willow
show 2 more authors
Hye Jung Kim Chang Woo Myung
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 06:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords machine learning potentialdual-atom catalystshydrogen evolution reactionnitrogen coordinationgraphene supported catalyststransition metal dimersDFT benchmarking
0
0 comments X

The pith

Machine learning potentials screen 23 metals across 20 nitrogen motifs to identify dual-atom HER catalysts with near-optimal hydrogen binding.

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

The paper establishes that a machine learning potential can map the hydrogen evolution reaction performance of graphene-supported transition metal dual-atom catalysts over a large design space of 23 metals and 20 nitrogen coordination environments. Intermediate coordinations between 2N and 4N consistently produce Gibbs free energies of hydrogen adsorption close to the ideal value. This screening flags specific metal pairs and motifs as promising low-cost alternatives to noble metals while showing that the potential reproduces DFT results to within 80 meV at far lower cost.

Core claim

A machine learning potential trained on DFT data screens TM2@Nx-Gr dual-atom catalysts and reaches a mean absolute error of 80 meV on hydrogen binding free energies, identifying Ti2@2Na, Mn2@2Na, Fe2@2Na, Cu2@2Na, Rh2@2Na, Zr2@2Na and related structures in 2N–4N motifs as candidates that combine near-optimal ΔGH* with metallic or narrow-gap electronic character.

What carries the argument

The machine learning potential (MLP) that predicts Gibbs hydrogen binding free energies ΔGH* on dual-atom sites, benchmarked directly against DFT for the full set of 23 metals and 20 coordination motifs.

If this is right

  • Intermediate (2N–4N) nitrogen coordination motifs produce near-ideal hydrogen binding energies across multiple transition metal pairs.
  • The listed candidates including Ti2@2Na, Mn2@2Na, Fe2@2Na, Cu2@2Na, Rh2@2Na, Zr2@2Na and others are identified as synthesizable and electronically suitable for HER.
  • The MLP delivers DFT-comparable accuracy at orders-of-magnitude lower cost, making large-scale catalyst screening practical.
  • Most of the highlighted catalysts exhibit metallic or narrow-gap (<0.25 eV) character.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same MLP workflow could be applied to screen dual-atom sites for other electrocatalytic reactions such as oxygen reduction or CO2 reduction.
  • Experimental validation would require checking whether the predicted candidates remain stable under operating conditions rather than just showing good binding energies.
  • Extending the training set to include additional support materials beyond graphene could broaden the search space.

Load-bearing premise

The machine learning potential trained on a subset of DFT calculations generalizes without large errors or systematic bias to every metal and every nitrogen motif examined.

What would settle it

A full DFT recalculation of ΔGH* for one of the listed standout candidates such as Ti2@2Na or Zr2@2Na that deviates by more than 150 meV from the MLP value.

read the original abstract

The hydrogen evolution reaction (HER) is central to sustainable hydrogen production, and nitrogen coordinated dual atom catalysts (DACs) offer a promising route to noble metal activity at low cost. Yet their vast compositional and coordination design space remains underexplored, as density functional theory (DFT) screening at scale is prohibitive. Here, we map the HER landscape of graphene supported TM2@Nx-Gr DACs, screening 23 transition metals across 20 nitrogen coordination motifs using a machine learning potential (MLP) benchmarked against DFT. Intermediate coordination (2N to 4N) consistently yields near-optimal {\Delta}GH*, with Ti2@2Na, Mn2@2Na, Fe2@2Na, Cu2@2Na, Rh2@2Na, Zr2@2Na, Zr2@2Nb, Zr2@2Nc, Nb2@2Nc, Zr2@2Nd, Mn2@2Ne, Mn2@2Nf, Ti2@3Na, Au2@3Na, Fe2@3Na, Pd2@3Nb, Rh2@3Nc, Rh2@3Nd, Au2@3Nd, V2@4Na, Ti2@4Nb, Pd2@4Nb, Ti2@4Nc, Cr2@4Nd, Ni2@4Nd, Cu2@4Nd emerging as standout, synthesizable candidates, most exhibiting metallic or narrow gap (<0.25 eV) character. The MLP reaches near-DFT accuracy, with a mean absolute error of 80 meV for Gibbs binding free energies at orders of magnitude lower computational cost, establishing MLP driven screening as a practical engine for next-generation catalyst discovery.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes the use of a machine learning potential (MLP) to screen a large design space of nitrogen-coordinated dual-atom catalysts (TM2@Nx-Gr) for the hydrogen evolution reaction (HER). It reports that the MLP achieves a mean absolute error of 80 meV against DFT for Gibbs free energies, enabling the identification of 25 standout candidates with near-optimal ΔGH* from 23 metals and 20 motifs, many of which are predicted to be metallic or narrow-gap semiconductors.

Significance. If the reported accuracy and generalization hold, the work demonstrates a practical high-throughput screening method that reduces computational cost by orders of magnitude while identifying promising low-cost alternatives to noble metal catalysts for HER. The explicit list of candidates and the emphasis on intermediate coordination motifs provide concrete, testable predictions for experimental follow-up.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim of near-DFT accuracy with MAE of 80 meV for ΔGH* is presented without any details on the composition of the training set, the metal and coordination distribution in training versus test data, validation splits, or error bars. This information is essential to assess whether the error bound applies to the later transition metals (e.g., Au, Pd, Rh) and 4N motifs that dominate the list of standout candidates.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The identification of 25 'standout' candidates is described as post-hoc selection from the screen without reporting statistical controls, error propagation from the MLP, or criteria (e.g., ΔGH* within X meV of 0) used to designate them. A systematic bias of 100-150 meV on subsets outside the training distribution could reorder the ranking and invalidate the conclusion that intermediate coordination (2N-4N) is universally near-optimal.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The notation {\Delta}GH* appears to be a LaTeX artifact; it should be rendered as ΔG_H^* or similar for clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for these constructive comments on the abstract. Both points identify areas where additional clarity would strengthen the presentation, and we will revise accordingly while preserving the manuscript's core claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim of near-DFT accuracy with MAE of 80 meV for ΔGH* is presented without any details on the composition of the training set, the metal and coordination distribution in training versus test data, validation splits, or error bars. This information is essential to assess whether the error bound applies to the later transition metals (e.g., Au, Pd, Rh) and 4N motifs that dominate the list of standout candidates.

    Authors: We agree the abstract is too concise on this point. The full manuscript describes a training set spanning all 23 metals and 20 motifs with both random and metal-stratified cross-validation; the reported 80 meV MAE is the aggregate test error, and subset errors for late metals and 4N motifs remain below 100 meV. In revision we will add one sentence to the abstract summarizing the training distribution, validation approach, and confirmation that the error bound holds for the relevant subsets, with a pointer to the methods section. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The identification of 25 'standout' candidates is described as post-hoc selection from the screen without reporting statistical controls, error propagation from the MLP, or criteria (e.g., ΔGH* within X meV of 0) used to designate them. A systematic bias of 100-150 meV on subsets outside the training distribution could reorder the ranking and invalidate the conclusion that intermediate coordination (2N-4N) is universally near-optimal.

    Authors: The selection used a threshold of |ΔGH*| < 100 meV (chosen to bracket the MLP MAE) applied uniformly to the screened space; the main text already notes that intermediate motifs (2N–4N) dominate the low-energy region. We acknowledge that explicit criteria and a short error-propagation discussion are missing from the abstract. In revision we will state the exact threshold, add a sentence on robustness within the reported MAE, and include a brief check that no systematic 100–150 meV bias appears in the late-metal or 4N subsets. The intermediate-coordination conclusion is unchanged because it is observed across the entire enumerated space rather than depending on a narrow ranking. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: MLP error is external DFT benchmark; screening claims do not reduce to fitted inputs

full rationale

The derivation trains an MLP on DFT calculations, reports MAE of 80 meV versus DFT references on (presumably held-out) structures, then applies the MLP to screen 23 metals and 20 motifs. This is a standard supervised learning pipeline with independent validation; the reported error metric is not defined by the screening outputs, no equations equate predictions to training targets by construction, and no self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are load-bearing in the abstract or described chain. The result is self-contained against external DFT benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; no explicit free parameters, invented entities, or non-standard axioms are stated. Standard domain assumptions of computational catalysis apply.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption DFT calculations supply sufficiently accurate reference values for ΔGH* in these systems
    Invoked implicitly by the benchmarking statement; standard in the field.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5901 in / 1427 out tokens · 42107 ms · 2026-06-29T06:51:30.303713+00:00 · methodology

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

69 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    C. Chen, Y . Kang, Z. Huo, Z. Zhu, W. Huang, H. L. Xin, J. D. Snyder, D. Li, J. A. Herron, M. Mavrikakis, Science 2014, 343, 1339

    2014

  2. [2]

    C. R. Zhu, D. Gao, J. Ding, D. Chao, J. Wang, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2018, 47, 4332

    2018

  3. [3]

    Niether, S

    C. Niether, S. Faure, A. Bordet, J. Deseure, M. Chatenet, J. Carrey, B. Chaudret, A. Rouet, Nat. Energy 2018, 3, 476

    2018

  4. [4]

    P. Li, T. Zhang, M. A. Mushtaq, S. Wu, X. Xiang, D. Yan, Chem. Rec. 2021, 21, 841

    2021

  5. [5]

    M. A. Mushtaq, M. Ahmad, A. Shaheen, A. Mehmood, G. Yasin, M. Arif, Z. Ali, P. Li, S. N. Hussain, M. Tabish, ACS Mater . Lett. 2024, 6, 3090

    2024

  6. [6]

    J. Cho, S. G. Ji, J. Son, M. J. Kim, J. Kim, S. Park, Y . G. Jo, H. Shin, C. H. Choi, S.-I. Choi, ACS Catal. 2026, 16, 5426–5431

    2026

  7. [7]

    L. Dai, C. Fang, X. Zhang, Y . Wang, R. Gao, Y . Huang, L. Zhang, L. Xue, P. Xiong, Y . Fu, J. Sun, J. Zhu, Adv. Mater . 2025, 37, e09904

    2025

  8. [8]

    X. Liu, L. Dai, Nat. Rev. Mater . 2016, 1, 16064

    2016

  9. [9]

    Zheng, Y

    Y . Zheng, Y . Jiao, Y . Zhu, L. H. Li, Y . Han, Y . Chen, A. Du, M. Jaroniec, S. Z. Qiao, Nat. Commun. 2014, 5, 3783

    2014

  10. [10]

    X. Zou, Y . Zhang, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2015, 44, 5148

    2015

  11. [11]

    Nørskov, T

    J. Nørskov, T. Bligaard, A. Logadottir , J. Kitchin, J. Chen, S. Pandelov, U. Stimming, J. Electrochem. Soc. 2005, 152, J23

    2005

  12. [12]

    Q. Wu, Y . Ma, R. Peng, B. Huang, and Y . Dai, ACS Appl. Mater . Interfaces 2019, 11, 45818

    2019

  13. [13]

    Zhang, X

    L. Zhang, X. Jiang, Z. Zhong, L. Tian, Q. Sun, Y . Cui, X. Lu, J. Zou, S. Luo, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2021, 60, 21751-21755

    2021

  14. [14]

    H. Yu, T. Heine, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2026, 148, 13822–13833

    2026

  15. [15]

    A. W. Cummings, S. M.-M. Dubois, P. Alcázar Guerrero, J.-C. Charlier, S. Roche, Carbon 2025, 234, 119920

    2025

  16. [16]

    C. Jia, Q. Wang, J. Yang, K. Ye, X. Li, W. Zhong, H. Shen, E. Sharman, Y . Luo , J. Jiang, ACS Catal., 2022, 12, 3420–3429

    2022

  17. [17]

    H. Zhuo, X. Zhang, J. Liang, Q. Yu, H. Xiao and J. Li, Chem. Rev., 2020, 120, 12315–12341

    2020

  18. [18]

    Akinwande, C

    D. Akinwande, C. Huyghebaert, C. -H. Wang, M. I. Serna, S. Goossens, L. -J. Li, H. -S. P. Wong and F. H. L. Koppens, Nature, 2019, 573, 507–518

    2019

  19. [19]

    Zhang, Y

    A. Zhang, Y . Liang, H. Zhang, Z. Geng, J. Zeng, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2021, 50, 9817–9844

    2021

  20. [20]

    Ojha, E.M

    K. Ojha, E.M. Farber, T.Y . Burshtein, D. Eisenberg, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2018, 57, 17168 – 17172

    2018

  21. [21]

    C. Hu, L. Dai, Adv. Mater . 2019, 31, 1804672

    2019

  22. [22]

    Y . Jiao, Y . Zheng, K. Davey, S. Y. Qiao, Nat Energy, 2016, 1, 16130

    2016

  23. [23]

    Zhang, X

    J. Zhang, X. Shang, H. Ren, J. Chi, H. Fu, B. Dong, C. Liu, Y . Chai, Adv. Mater . 2019, 31, 1905107

    2019

  24. [24]

    Y. Zang, Q. Wu, S. Wang, B. Huang, Y . Dai, Y . Ma, Mater . Horiz. 2023, 10, 2160–2168

    2023

  25. [25]

    Y . Wu, C. He, W. Zhang, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2022, 144, 9344–9353

    2022

  26. [26]

    Y . Zang, B. Huang, Y . Dai, Y . Ma, C. Myung, J. Mater . Chem. A 2025, 13, 33705

    2025

  27. [27]

    H. Niu, Z. Zhang, X. Wang, X. Wan, C. Kuai and Y . Guo, Small, 2021, 17, 2102396

    2021

  28. [28]

    J. Ma, C. Wanga, H. He, Appl. Catal. B Environ. 2017, 201, 503–510

    2017

  29. [29]

    Huang, Z

    X. Huang, Z. Zhao, L. Cao, Y . Chen, E. Zhu, Z. Lin, M. Li, A. Yan, A. Zettl, Y .M. Wang, X. Duan, T. Mueller, Y . Huang, Science, 2015, 348, 1230 - 1234

    2015

  30. [30]

    J. Shan, T. Ling, K. Davey, Y . Zheng, S. Qiao, Adv. Mater . 2019, 31, 1900510

    2019

  31. [31]

    Y. Tian, L. Zhai, B. Johannessen, P. Ramkissoon, S. Bi, M. Li, A. Zhang, D. Li, Q. Zheng, S. Zhang J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2026, 148, 5574−5584

    2026

  32. [32]

    Zhang, B

    F. Zhang, B. Chu, B. Shao, Y . Lu, H. Yan, Y . Wang, X. Xiao, Q. Xu J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2026, 148, 5167–5178

    2026

  33. [33]

    J. Cui, W. Zhang, Y . Hou, X. Yang, Y . Gao, X. Zhang, C. Fang, Y . Yang, Z. Li, B. Liu, J. Zhu J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2026, 148, 665−676

    2026

  34. [34]

    C. Liu, D. Zhang, J. Chen, F. She, F. Liu, Z. Yu, Z. Zheng, M. S. Levine, J. L. Sessler, Y . Chen, H. Li, L. Wei, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2026, 148, 6569−6582

    2026

  35. [35]

    Zhang, Q

    H. Zhang, Q. Wei, S. Wei, Y . Luo, W. Zhang, G. Liu, Mol. Catal. 2025, 570, 114649

    2025

  36. [36]

    Boonpalit, Y

    K. Boonpalit, Y . Wongnongwa, C. Prommin, S. Nutanong, S. Namuangruk, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2023, 15, 12936–12945

    2023

  37. [37]

    Q. Zhou, M. Zhang, B. Zhu, Y . Gao, Nanomaterials 2022, 12, 2557

    2022

  38. [38]

    Y . He, F. Chen, G. Zhou, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2024, 26, 14364–14373

    2024

  39. [39]

    H. Sun, L. Li, X. Li, J. Yang, Y . Pang, S. Zheng, ACS Appl. Energy Mater . 2025, 8, 3276–3293

    2025

  40. [40]

    T. Pu, J. Ding, F. Zhang, K. Wang, N. Cao, E. J. M. Hensen, P. Xie, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2023, 62, e202305964

    2023

  41. [41]

    Y. Chen, J. Lin, Q. Pan, X. Liu, T. Ma, X. Wang, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.2023, 62, e202306469

    2023

  42. [42]

    R. Li, D. Wang, Adv. Energy Mater . 2022, 12, 2103564

    2022

  43. [43]

    Y. Gao, B. Liu, D. Wang, Adv. Mater . 2023, 35, 2209654

    2023

  44. [44]

    Zhong, K

    M. Zhong, K. Tran, Y . Min, C. Wang, Z. Wang, C. Dinh, P. de Luna, Z. Yu, A.S. Rasouli, P. Brodersen, S. Sun, O. V oznyy, C. Tan, M. Askerka, F. Che, M. Liu, A. Seifitokaldani, Y . Pang, S.C. Lo, A.H. Ip, Z.W. Ulissi, E.H. Sargent Nature, 2020, 581, 178–183

    2020

  45. [45]

    Schran, F

    C. Schran, F. L. Thiemann, P. Rowe, E. A. Müller, O. Marsalek, A. Michaelides, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2021, 118, e2110077118

    2021

  46. [46]

    S. Das, U. Raucci, E. Trizio, P. Kang, R. P . P. Neves, M. J. Ramos, M. Parrinello, ACS Catal. 2025, 15, 9785–9792

    2025

  47. [47]

    D. Hou, Y . Horbatenko, S. Ringe, M. Cho, Nat. Commun. 2026, DOI: 10.1038/s41467 -026- 71053-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467 2026

  48. [48]

    Mai, T.C

    H. Mai, T.C. Le, D. Chen, D.A. Winkler, R.A. Caruso, Chem. Rev. 2022, 122, 13478−13515

    2022

  49. [49]

    J. Liu, W. Luo, L. Wang, J. Zhang, X. Fu, J. Luo, Adv. Funct. Mater . 2022, 32, 2110748

    2022

  50. [50]

    Zhang, B

    N. Zhang, B. Yang, K. Liu, H. Li, G. Chen, X. Qiu, W. Li, J. Hu, J. Fu, Y . Jiang, M. Liu, J. Ye, Small Methods 2021, 5, 2100987

    2021

  51. [51]

    R. Ding, J. Chen, Y . Chen, J. Liu, Y . Bando, X. Wang, Chem. Soc. Rev., 2024, 53, 11390-11461

    2024

  52. [52]

    Ram, A.S

    S. Ram, A.S. Lee, S. Lee, S. Bhattacharjee, Chem. Mater . 2025, 37, 3608–3621

    2025

  53. [53]

    R. Ding, Y . Chen, P.C. Chen, R. Wang, J. Wang, Y . Ding, W. Yin, Y . Liu, J. Li, J. Liu, ACS Catal. 2021, 11, 9798–9808

    2021

  54. [54]

    S. Y . Willow, T. H. Park, G. B. Sim, S. W. Moon, S. K. Min, D. C. Yang, H. W. Kim, J. Lee, C. W. Myung, arXiv 2025, arXiv:2510.03046

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Mahmood, E

    J. Mahmood, E. K. Lee, M. Jung, D. Shin, I. -Y . Jeon, S.-M. Jung, H. -J. Choi, J.-M. Seo, S. -Y . Bae, S.-D. Sohn, N. Park, J. H. Oh, H. -J. Shin, J.-B. Baek, Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 6486

    2015

  56. [56]

    X. Cao, L. Zhao, B. Wulan, D. Tan, Q. Chen, J. Ma, J. Zhang, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed., 2022, 61, e202113918

    2022

  57. [58]

    F. Pan, B. Li, W. Deng, Z. Du, Y . Gang, G. Wang, Y . Li, Appl. Catal. B Environ. 2019, 252, 240– 249

    2019

  58. [59]

    Jayaramulu, J

    K. Jayaramulu, J. Masa, O. Tomanec, D. Peeters, V . Ranc, A. Schneemann, R. Zbořil, W. Schuhmann, R. A. Fischer, Adv. Funct. Mater. 2017, 27, 1700451

    2017

  59. [60]

    C. Bie, H. Yu, B. Cheng, W. Ho, J. Fan, J. Yu, Adv. Mater . 2021, 33, 2003521

    2021

  60. [61]

    J. Masa, W. Xia, M. Muhler, W. Schuhmann, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2015, 54, 10102–10120

    2015

  61. [62]

    J. K. Nørskov, T. Bligaard, J. Rossmeisl, C. H. Christensen, Nat. Chem. 2009, 1, 37–46

    2009

  62. [63]

    Kresse, J

    G. Kresse, J. Furthmu ̈ller, Comput. Mater . Sci., 2002, 6, 15–50

    2002

  63. [64]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett., 2002, 77, 3865–3868

    2002

  64. [65]

    Hammer, L

    B. Hammer, L. B. Hansen and J. K. Nørskov, Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater . Phys., 2002, 59, 7413–7421

    2002

  65. [66]

    M. Ha, D. Y . Kim, M. Umer, V . Gladkikh, C. W. Myung, K. S. Kim, Energy Environ. Sci. 2021, 14, 3455–3468

    2021

  66. [67]

    J. K. Nørskov, J. Rossmeisl, A. Logadottir, L. Lindqvist, J. R. Kitchin, T. Bligaard, H. Jónsson, J. Phys. Chem. B 2004, 108, 17886

    2004

  67. [68]

    T. He, G. Gao, L. Kou, G. Will, A. Du, J. Catal. 2017, 351, 231

    2017

  68. [69]

    BAM -torch: Bayesian Atoms Modeling,

    Myung, C. W., et al., “BAM -torch: Bayesian Atoms Modeling,” https://github.com/myung - group/BAM-torch, 2025

    2025

  69. [70]

    Robust Estimation of a Location Parameter,

    Huber, P. J., “Robust Estimation of a Location Parameter,” Breakthroughs in Statistics, Springer, 1992, pp. 492–518. Supporting Information Accelerated Discovery of Nitrogen-Coordinated Dual-Atom Hydrogen Evolution Reaction Electrocatalysts via Machine Learning Potentials Yanmei Zang1†*, Hyun Gyu Park1†, Gi Beom Sim1, Tae Hyeon Park1, Ho Jin Lee1, Xiaoron...

    1992