GQD-AdsNet: Graph Neural Networks Unlock Rapid Exploration of Transition Metal Adsorption on Graphene Quantum Dots

(2) Instituto de Investigaci\'on en Se\~nales; (3) General Chemistry (ALGC) Materials Modelling Group Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB); Belgium); Brussel; Frederik Tielens (3); Gustavo Belletti (1); Lara Goncebat (1); Mat\'ias Gerard (2); Paola Quaino (1) ((1) Instituto de Qu\'imica Aplicada del Litoral IQAL (UNL-CONICET) Santa Fe Argentina; Rodrigo Echeveste (2)

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 32 references

GQD-AdsNet: Graph Neural Networks Unlock Rapid Exploration of Transition Metal Adsorption on Graphene Quantum Dots

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read GQD-AdsNet predicts transition-metal adsorption energies on graphene quantum dots with a mean absolute error of 0.101 eV, reproducing density functional theory at roughly one-millionth of the cost.

desk verdict A legitimate GNN surrogate for metal adsorption on GQDs with a valuable open dataset, but the headline accuracy comes from a split that shares GQD shapes across train and test, so trust the paper's own leave-geometry-out numbers (MAE up to 0.239 eV) over the R²=0.906. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.18591 v1 pith:RWTUIRKV submitted 2026-07-20 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cs.LG

Lara Goncebat (1) , Rodrigo Echeveste (2) , Matías Gerard (2) , Frederik Tielens (3) , Gustavo Belletti (1) , Paola Quaino (1) ((1) Instituto de Química Aplicada del Litoral IQAL (UNL-CONICET) Santa Fe Argentina , (2) Instituto de Investigación en Señales , Sistemas e Inteligencia Computacional sinc (i) (UNL-CONICET) Santa Fe Argentina

show 3 more authors

(3) General Chemistry (ALGC) Materials Modelling Group Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) Brussel Belgium)

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mtrl-scics.LG

keywords graphenequantumdotstransitionmetaladsorptiongraphneuralnetworksenergypredictionmachinelearningsurrogatesingle-atomcatalystsdensityfunctionaltheoryhigh-throughputscreening

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

The paper tries to establish that a graph neural network can substitute for density functional theory when screening transition metals (Pd, Pt, Ir, Rh) adsorbed on graphene quantum dots. To do this, the authors built a 491-configuration DFT dataset across six GQD shapes and three adsorption-site types, then trained GQD-AdsNet, a three-layer graph convolutional network that reads only geometry and graph topology. On a metal-stratified random test split, the network reaches R² = 0.906, RMSE = 0.134 eV, and MAE = 0.101 eV. Because a single DFT relaxation costs about 320 CPU-hours while the network predicts a configuration in about 0.002 seconds, the authors argue that the model opens high-throughput catalyst screening for carbon nanostructures. A sympathetic reader would care because adsorption energy is the quantity that controls catalyst stability and activity.

What carries the argument

GQD-AdsNet: a three-layer graph convolutional network that takes a GQD–metal system as a graph (atoms = nodes, bonds = edges; hydrogens removed) and returns a scalar adsorption energy. The load-bearing elements are the seven per-atom descriptors, message passing over three convolutions, global max pooling, and a two-layer MLP regressor; this combination is what lets the model encode many-body chemical environments without explicit electronic-structure features.

What would settle it

Re-train GQD-AdsNet from the published code and dataset using a leave-one-shape-out or leave-one-metal-out cross-validation instead of the random metal-stratified split; if the test MAE on held-out triangular GQDs stays near 0.239 eV (rather than the reported 0.101 eV), the claim of rapid exploration of previously unseen GQD geometries fails at the stated accuracy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

GQD-AdsNet represents each GQD–metal system as an undirected graph — atoms as nodes, bonds as edges, hydrogen excluded — and decorates nodes with seven local descriptors (atomic number, electron affinity, group, period, distance to the metal, internal/external site, hydrogen connectivity). Three graph-convolution layers exchange information along edges, a global max-pooling step collapses the graph into a fingerprint vector, and a two-layer MLP regresses the adsorption energy. The paper's central finding is that this purely structural model reproduces DFT adsorption energies to 0.101 eV mean absolute error without any DFT-derived electronic descriptors, implying that local geometry and graph

Load-bearing premise

The headline accuracy depends on the assumption that a random 10% test split stratified by metal identity measures the model's ability to generalize to new configurations; the paper's own leave-one-shape-out test, which removes an entire GQD geometry, raises the MAE to as much as 0.239 eV for triangular dots, more than twice the reported 0.101 eV.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single DFT relaxation costs about 320 CPU-hours while GQD-AdsNet predicts a configuration in about 0.002 s, so exhaustive adsorption-site maps become feasible with negligible cost.
Predictions reproduce the physically expected preference for external/edge sites over interior sites, so the model preserves qualitative chemical trends on configurations it was not trained on.
The metal-stratified test metrics (R² = 0.906, MAE = 0.101 eV) are the paper's evidence that performance is consistent across Pd, Pt, Ir, and Rh.
The ensemble of the ten cross-validation models improves metrics only marginally (MAE 0.097 eV, R² = 0.907), indicating that the single model already captures nearly all learnable signal in this dataset.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial extension: the more demanding test is shape transferability — the paper's own leave-one-shape-out analysis yields MAEs up to 0.239 eV for triangular dots, so geometry-stratified errors should be reported alongside random-split errors before trusting screened candidates in unexplored families.
Editorial extension: the same graph representation could plausibly extend to doped or defective GQDs and to other transition metals (e.g., Fe, Co, Ni, Cu) because the seven node descriptors remain physically meaningful; the paper does not test these, but nothing in the architecture prevents it.
Editorial extension: a useful next experiment is to compare GQD-AdsNet against the adsorption-energy problem on infinite graphene or on much larger dots, checking whether edge effects learned on small dots extrapolate or break down when periodicity appears.
Editorial extension: because the model was trained only on four noble metals, using it to rank non-noble single-atom catalysts is extrapolation, not interpolation; uncertainty estimates or a separate calibration set would be needed before acting on such rankings.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a clearly written, honest application of a fairly standard graph neural network to a new DFT dataset for metal adsorption on graphene quantum dots, with open code and data. The main thing to watch is the headline accuracy. The R²=0.906 and MAE=0.101 eV come from a 10% random test split stratified only by metal, and since the six GQDs come from just three geometry families, the same shapes appear in both training and test. The paper's own leave-one-geometry-family-out test gives MAEs of 0.131–0.239 eV — that is the more realistic measure for the screening workflow they advertise, which targets unseen geometries. They do report those transferability numbers in the main text, not buried, so the paper is not hiding its weakness; but the abstract and the screening claims lean on the optimistic split.

What is genuinely new is the dataset: 491 relaxed DFT adsorption energies across six GQDs and four metals, available on Zenodo and GitHub. That is reusable and a real contribution. The transferability analysis itself is also useful, and the training setup is fair: separate validation split, normalization on training data only, early stopping, hyperparameters chosen by cross-validation. The architecture is nothing exotic — three graph convolutional layers, global max pooling, an MLP head — but for a screening surrogate that is fine. I also appreciate that they tested an ensemble and reported the modest gain.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. First, the split issue above: a random split that shares GQD shapes inflates the apparent accuracy for new shapes. Since the stated purpose is exploring new GQDs, the grouped-split MAE is the number that should headline. Second, scope is small: four metals, six small GQDs, hydrogen atoms excluded from the graph. I would not over-read 'broad applicability.' The DFT setup (PBE-D3, gamma-point) is standard, and the six-orders-of-magnitude speedup is a bit loose, but the cost comparison is fine. The self-citation to their prior Pt-GQD paper is minor and used for a physical trend, not problematic.

Who will get value from this: groups working on ML surrogates for adsorption on carbon nanostructures, and anyone who wants a compact open dataset of GQD–metal adsorption energies. It deserves a serious referee. A fair review should push the authors to report the grouped-split metrics as the primary generalization claim, or at least temper the screening language in the abstract. The method is sound; the framing needs a fix.

My recommendation: send it to peer review, and in the review ask for the leave-geometry-out results to be front and center. I would also cite the dataset if I worked in this niche.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces GQD-AdsNet, a graph neural network aimed at predicting adsorption energies of transition-metal adatoms (Pd, Pt, Ir, Rh) on graphene quantum dots. The authors construct a dataset of 491 DFT-relaxed configurations spanning six GQD shapes and three high-symmetry site types, and train a three-layer graph convolutional network with global max pooling and an MLP head. On a 10% random test split stratified by metal identity, the model achieves R²=0.906, RMSE=0.134 eV, and MAE=0.101 eV, and the authors report a speedup of several orders of magnitude relative to DFT. The paper also includes a leave-one-group-out transferability analysis with higher MAEs, an automated adsorption-site exploration workflow, and the generation of new GQD geometries. Code and data are publicly available.

Significance. If the headline accuracy is representative, GQD-AdsNet would offer a practical low-cost surrogate for DFT-based screening of metal–GQD catalysts, addressing a real bottleneck in computational catalysis. The study's strengths include a fully open dataset and codebase, a clear description of the DFT pipeline, and the inclusion of a geometry-transfer experiment that acknowledges limitations. However, the central screening claim ('rapid exploration of transition metal adsorption on GQDs') depends on generalization to unseen GQD shapes, and the reported headline numbers come from a split that does not separate shapes. The paper's own leave-family-out results are materially worse (MAE up to 0.239 eV for triangular GQDs), so the abstract and introduction overstate the model's capability for new geometries.

major comments (2)

[Model Training and Evaluation; Transferability] The headline R²=0.906, MAE=0.101 eV are obtained on a 10% random split stratified only by metal identity. This split does not separate GQD shapes, so every test geometry appears in the training set; the metrics effectively measure interpolation across sites of already-seen shapes. The paper's own leave-one-family-out analysis (groups = HQD, TQD, RQD) is the relevant extrapolation test and reports MAEs of 0.133–0.239 eV — up to 2.4× the reported MAE. Since the workflow in 'Generation of New GQD Structures' is explicitly aimed at previously unseen geometries, these grouped-split errors should be presented as the headline screening accuracy, or the random-split numbers should be clearly framed as within-known-geometry interpolation.
[Generalization and Predictive Exploration] The claim that the model 'is capable of extrapolating to new systems' is not directly supported by a quantitative validation. The first exploration strategy uses the 3×4RQD, a geometry already present in the training set. The second strategy shows predicted adsorption maps for newly generated GQDs, but no DFT reference values are provided for these new structures. The only quantitative geometry-transfer evidence is the leave-one-family-out analysis, which shows degraded accuracy. Please either add DFT verification for a subset of newly generated geometries or temper the extrapolation claim to what the data actually support.

minor comments (5)

[Computational Cost Considerations; Abstract] The stated speed-up of 'roughly six orders of magnitude' does not match the quoted numbers: 320 CPU-h per DFT configuration versus ~0.002 s per GNN prediction corresponds to a ratio of about 5.8×10^8 (≈9 orders of magnitude). Please clarify the basis of the 'six orders' figure.
[Transferability] The text says 'groups corresponded to the three GQD geometries,' but Fig. 2 shows six GQDs. The groups are evidently the three geometry families (HQD, TQD, RQD), each containing two shapes. Please make this explicit to avoid ambiguity.
[Figure 5] The right panel is stated to be a 'new proposed configuration' but the exact GQD structure is not identified. Please label or describe it so that the adsorption-site map is interpretable.
[Methods, Eq. (3)] The notation in Eq. (3), v^(0)_0 … v^(R)_N, is inconsistent with the node and layer indexing used elsewhere. Define R consistently or use a uniform notation for layer indices.
[References] References [22,23] concern transition-metal adsorption on infinite graphene. Consider citing a study specific to metal adsorption on finite graphene quantum dots for the comparison in the adsorption-site exploration section.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: GNN is a supervised surrogate honestly fitted to DFT labels; only a minor non-load-bearing self-citation appears.

full rationale

The paper's central object is a supervised surrogate: Eads labels come from DFT (Eq. 1) and the GNN is fitted to those labels, so the reported test metrics are empirical validation of an interpolant, not a derivation from first principles. This setup is transparent and standard; no fitted parameter is relabeled as an ab initio result. The leave-one-group-out MAEs (0.133, 0.239, and 0.131 eV) are honestly reported and qualify generalization to unseen GQD geometries, but that is a performance/correctness caveat, not circularity. The only self-citation, ref. [14], supports a qualitative physical trend (edge sites bind more strongly) and is not load-bearing for the model's accuracy claim. No step in the paper reduces by construction to its own inputs, so there is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a fitted machine-learning model whose weights, hyperparameters, and input features are all chosen or fitted against the DFT data. The DFT labels themselves rely on the PBE-D3 approximation and a small, hand-picked set of GQD geometries and metals. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)

GNN weights (3 graph conv layers + 2-layer MLP)
Learned by MSE minimization on 90% of the 491 DFT adsorption energies; these are the core fitting parameters of the surrogate.
Hidden feature dimension = 64
Selected by hyperparameter search on validation; not derived from theory.
Number of convolution layers = 3
Selected during hyperparameter optimization; hand-picked from a small set.
Learning rate / batch size = 1e-3 / 8
Adam optimizer settings chosen based on validation performance; model-dependent.
Global pooling type = max
Chosen as the best among max/add/mean on the validation set; a modeling choice.
Input feature set
Authors selected seven node features (atomic number, electron affinity, group, period, distance to metal, internal/external indicator, hydrogen-connectivity indicator); these are ad hoc descriptors, not proven to be complete.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption DFT with PBE-D3 and Γ-point sampling yields reliable reference adsorption energies for GQD–metal systems.
All training labels come from these calculations; if the DFT setup is inaccurate for these finite systems, the surrogate inherits the systematic error.
ad hoc to paper The graph representation (atoms as nodes, bonds as edges, hydrogen excluded, no explicit electronic descriptors) captures sufficient information to predict adsorption energies.
The authors assert this based on model performance, but the paper does not prove that all relevant electronic effects are encoded; it is a modeling assumption that appears to hold partially.
domain assumption The 491 configurations from 6 GQDs and 4 metals are representative of the broader GQD–metal configurational space.
Generalization to other sizes, shapes, and metals is assumed; the leave-one-group-out results indicate this assumption holds only weakly for new shapes.
domain assumption Standard supervised learning assumption: training and deployment distributions are similar.
Needed for the model to extrapolate; the main random split does not enforce this, while leave-one-group-out provides a partial test.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GQD-AdsNet: Graph Neural Networks Unlock Rapid Exploration of Transition Metal Adsorption on Graphene Quantum Dots." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RWTUIRKV

@misc{pith2026260718591,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GQD-AdsNet: Graph Neural Networks Unlock Rapid Exploration of Transition Metal Adsorption on Graphene Quantum Dots},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RWTUIRKV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.18591}
}

abstract

In recent years, interest in single-atom catalysts supported on carbon-based structures has grown considerably due to their high catalytic activity and efficient uses of metal atoms. However, the design and characterization of these materials through first-principles calculations are computationally expensive, limiting the exploration of a large number of possible configurations. Here, we developed a framework based on graph neural networks (GNNs) to predict the adsorption energies of transition metals on graphene quantum dots (GQDs). The model was trained using data obtained from density functional theory calculations and achieved an $R^2$ of 0.906 with an MAE of 0.101 eV, while reducing computational cost by roughly six orders of magnitude relative to DFT. This methodology provides an efficient tool for the accelerated screening and rational design of new catalysts based on carbon nanostructures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18591 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Graphene quantum dots: hexagonal quantum dots (HQD): 2x2HQD, 3x3HQD; triangulene [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Architecture of the proposed GQD-AdsNet for adsorption-energy prediction. The graph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Adsorption energies predicted vs DFT calculated for the test set, categorized by transition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Adsorption energy maps of (left) the 3x4RQD-Pd system and (right) another GQD config [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Illustration of the proposed workflow for the automated generation and screening of GQD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

[1]

Sustainable Energy & Fuels (2026)

Faizan, M., Ourimi, M., Bello, U., Alzoubi, R., Jallow, A., Siddiqui, M.: Designing Stable Elec- trocatalysts for Sustainable Energy Conversion. Sustainable Energy & Fuels (2026). Royal Society of Chemistry

2026
[2]

eScience3(4), 100141 (2023)

Wang, X., Yu, M., Feng, X.: Electronic structure regulation of noble metal-free materials toward alkaline oxygen electrocatalysis. eScience3(4), 100141 (2023)

2023
[3]

Frontiers in Energy Research12, 1373522 (2024)

Ara´ ujo, H.,ˇSljuki´ c, B., Gago, S., Santos, D.M.F.: The current state of transition metal-based electrocatalysts (oxides, alloys, POMs, and MOFs) for oxygen reduction, oxygen evolution, and hydrogen evolution reactions. Frontiers in Energy Research12, 1373522 (2024)

2024
[4]

ACS Catalysis15(13), 11617–11663 (2025)

Urso, M., Ju, X., Nittoor-Veedu, R., Lee, H., Zaoralov´ a, D., Otyepka, M., Pumera, M.: Sin- gle atom engineering for electrocatalysis: fundamentals and applications. ACS Catalysis15(13), 11617–11663 (2025)

2025
[5]

Advanced Materials30(48), 1801995 (2018)

Peng, Y., Lu, B., Chen, S.: Carbon-supported single atom catalysts for electrochemical energy conversion and storage. Advanced Materials30(48), 1801995 (2018)

2018
[6]

ACS Applied Nano Materials7(23), 26468–26488 (2024)

Hao, Z., Li, Y.: Carbon-Based Single-Atom Nanocatalysts for Electrochemical Energy Applica- tions. ACS Applied Nano Materials7(23), 26468–26488 (2024)

2024
[7]

Chemical Society Reviews44(1), 362–381 (2015)

Lim, S.Y., Shen, W., Gao, Z.: Carbon quantum dots and their applications. Chemical Society Reviews44(1), 362–381 (2015)

2015
[8]

Chemical Communications48(31), 3686–3699 (2012)

Shen, J., Zhu, Y., Yang, X., Li, C.: Graphene quantum dots: emergent nanolights for bioimaging, sensors, catalysis and photovoltaic devices. Chemical Communications48(31), 3686–3699 (2012)

2012

Show all 32 references

[9]

Nanoscale5(10), 4015–4039 (2013)

Li, L., Wu, G., Yang, G., Peng, J., Zhao, J., Zhu, J.-J.: Focusing on luminescent graphene quantum dots: current status and future perspectives. Nanoscale5(10), 4015–4039 (2013)

2013
[10]

Chemical Physics Let- ters695, 138–148 (2018)

Abdelsalam, H., Elhaes, H., Ibrahim, M.A.: Tuning electronic properties in graphene quantum dots by chemical functionalization: Density functional theory calculations. Chemical Physics Let- ters695, 138–148 (2018)

2018
[11]

Physica E: Low-dimensional Systems and Nanostructures135, 114993 (2022)

Ghosh, K., Mridha, N.K., Khan, A.A., Baildya, N., Dutta, T., Biswas, K., Ghosh, N.N.: CO 2 activation on transition metal decorated graphene quantum dots: An insight from first-principles. Physica E: Low-dimensional Systems and Nanostructures135, 114993 (2022)

2022
[12]

ACS Omega11(7), 12843–12851 (2026)

Perera, D.S.M., Sharma, P., Thisera, A., Kothalawala, N., Boebinger, M.G., Guiton, B.S., Kim, D.Y.: Nitrogenated Graphene Quantum Dot-Derived Copper Single-Atom Catalyst for Oxygen Reduction Reaction. ACS Omega11(7), 12843–12851 (2026)

2026
[13]

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy235, 155233 (2026)

Kumar, A., Toshkulov, A.Kh., Kholnazarov, B.A., Nisar, K.S., Ahmad, A., Malik, I.: Graphene quantum dots engineering for electrocatalytic hydrogen evolution: Fundamentals, material design, and future directions. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy235, 155233 (2026)

2026
[14]

Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter36(38), 383002 (2024)

Belletti, G.D., Goncebat, L., Schmickler, W., Colombo, E., Quaino, P.: Pt-based graphene quan- tum dots for water dissociation. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter36(38), 383002 (2024)

2024
[15]

Physical Review Letters120(14), 145301 (2018)

Xie, T., Grossman, J.C.: Crystal graph convolutional neural networks for an accurate and inter- pretable prediction of material properties. Physical Review Letters120(14), 145301 (2018)

2018
[16]

Computational Condensed Matter, e01139 (2025)

Nematov, D., Hojamberdiev, M.: Machine learning-driven materials discovery: Unlocking next- generation functional materials—A review. Computational Condensed Matter, e01139 (2025)

2025
[17]

Communications Materials3(1), 93 (2022)

Reiser, P., Neubert, M., Eberhard, A., Torresi, L., Zhou, C., Shao, C., Metni, H., van Hoesel, C., Schopmans, H., Sommer, T., et al.: Graph neural networks for materials science and chemistry. Communications Materials3(1), 93 (2022)

2022
[18]

IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks20(1), 61–80 (2009)

Scarselli, F., Gori, M., Tsoi, A.C., Hagenbuchner, M., Monfardini, G.: The Graph Neu- ral Network Model. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks20(1), 61–80 (2009). DOI: 10.1109/TNN.2008.2005605 10

2009
[19]

In: Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, vol

Gilmer, J., Schoenholz, S.S., Riley, P.F., Vinyals, O., Dahl, G.E.: Neural Message Passing for Quantum Chemistry. In: Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, vol. 70, pp. 1263–1272 (2017). DOI: 10.5555/3305381.3305512

2017
[20]

Nature Communications13(1), 5788 (2022)

Ghanekar, P.G., Deshpande, S., Greeley, J.: Adsorbate chemical environment-based machine learning framework for heterogeneous catalysis. Nature Communications13(1), 5788 (2022)

2022
[21]

In: Multiple Classifier Systems

Dietterich, T.G.: Ensemble Methods in Machine Learning. In: Multiple Classifier Systems. Lec- ture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1857, pp. 1–15. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2000). DOI: 10.1007/3-540-45014-9 1

2000 doi
[22]

Carbon95, 525–534 (2015)

Manad´ e, M., Vi˜ nes, F., Illas, F.: Transition metal adatoms on graphene: A systematic density functional study. Carbon95, 525–534 (2015). DOI: 10.1016/j.carbon.2015.08.072

2015 doi
[23]

Physica B: Condensed Matter405(16), 3337–3341 (2010)

Hu, L., Hu, X., Wu, X., Du, C., Dai, Y., Deng, J.: Density functional calculation of transition metal adatom adsorption on graphene. Physica B: Condensed Matter405(16), 3337–3341 (2010). DOI: 10.1016/j.physb.2010.05.001

2010 doi
[24]

Physical Review B47, 558–561 (1993)

Kresse, G., Hafner, J.: Ab initio molecular dynamics for liquid metals. Physical Review B47, 558–561 (1993)

1993
[25]

Physical Review B49, 14251–14269 (1994)

Kresse, G., Hafner, J.: Ab initio molecular-dynamics simulation of the liquid-metal-amorphous- semiconductor transition in germanium. Physical Review B49, 14251–14269 (1994)

1994
[26]

Computational Materials Science6, 15–50 (1996)

Kresse, G., Furthm¨ uller, J.: Efficiency of ab-initio total energy calculations for metals and semi- conductors using a plane-wave basis set. Computational Materials Science6, 15–50 (1996)

1996
[27]

Physical Review Letters77, 3865–3868 (1996)

Perdew, J.P., Burke, K., Ernzerhof, M.: Generalized Gradient Approximation Made Simple. Physical Review Letters77, 3865–3868 (1996)

1996
[28]

Perdew, J.P., Burke, K., Ernzerhof, M.: Generalized Gradient Approximation Made Simple [Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 3865]. Physical Review Letters78, 1396–1396 (1997)

1996
[29]

Journal of Computational Chemistry27, 1787–1799 (2006)

Grimme, S.: Semiempirical GGA-type density functional constructed with a long-range dispersion correction. Journal of Computational Chemistry27, 1787–1799 (2006)

2006
[30]

Journal of Chemical Physics132, 154104 (2010)

Grimme, S., Antony, J., Ehrlich, S., Krieg, H.: A consistent and accurate ab initio parametrization of density functional dispersion correction (DFT-D) for the 94 elements H-Pu. Journal of Chemical Physics132, 154104 (2010)

2010
[31]

In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol

Paszke, A., Gross, S., Massa, F., Lerer, A., Bradbury, J., Chanan, G., Killeen, T., Lin, Z., Gimelshein, N., Antiga, L., et al.: PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learn- ing Library. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 32 (2019)

2019
[32]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.02428 (2019) 11

Fey, M., Lenssen, J.E.: Fast Graph Representation Learning with PyTorch Geometric. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.02428 (2019) 11

1903 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Sustainable Energy & Fuels (2026)

Faizan, M., Ourimi, M., Bello, U., Alzoubi, R., Jallow, A., Siddiqui, M.: Designing Stable Elec- trocatalysts for Sustainable Energy Conversion. Sustainable Energy & Fuels (2026). Royal Society of Chemistry

2026

[2] [2]

eScience3(4), 100141 (2023)

Wang, X., Yu, M., Feng, X.: Electronic structure regulation of noble metal-free materials toward alkaline oxygen electrocatalysis. eScience3(4), 100141 (2023)

2023

[3] [3]

Frontiers in Energy Research12, 1373522 (2024)

Ara´ ujo, H.,ˇSljuki´ c, B., Gago, S., Santos, D.M.F.: The current state of transition metal-based electrocatalysts (oxides, alloys, POMs, and MOFs) for oxygen reduction, oxygen evolution, and hydrogen evolution reactions. Frontiers in Energy Research12, 1373522 (2024)

2024

[4] [4]

ACS Catalysis15(13), 11617–11663 (2025)

Urso, M., Ju, X., Nittoor-Veedu, R., Lee, H., Zaoralov´ a, D., Otyepka, M., Pumera, M.: Sin- gle atom engineering for electrocatalysis: fundamentals and applications. ACS Catalysis15(13), 11617–11663 (2025)

2025

[5] [5]

Advanced Materials30(48), 1801995 (2018)

Peng, Y., Lu, B., Chen, S.: Carbon-supported single atom catalysts for electrochemical energy conversion and storage. Advanced Materials30(48), 1801995 (2018)

2018

[6] [6]

ACS Applied Nano Materials7(23), 26468–26488 (2024)

Hao, Z., Li, Y.: Carbon-Based Single-Atom Nanocatalysts for Electrochemical Energy Applica- tions. ACS Applied Nano Materials7(23), 26468–26488 (2024)

2024

[7] [7]

Chemical Society Reviews44(1), 362–381 (2015)

Lim, S.Y., Shen, W., Gao, Z.: Carbon quantum dots and their applications. Chemical Society Reviews44(1), 362–381 (2015)

2015

[8] [8]

Chemical Communications48(31), 3686–3699 (2012)

Shen, J., Zhu, Y., Yang, X., Li, C.: Graphene quantum dots: emergent nanolights for bioimaging, sensors, catalysis and photovoltaic devices. Chemical Communications48(31), 3686–3699 (2012)

2012