Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 45 references

Accelerated Discovery of Materials with Extreme Work Functions through Uncertainty-Aware Multi-Fidelity Screening

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An uncertainty-aware machine-learning screen turns 5.5 million compounds into 436 extreme-work-function surfaces, ready for DFT-level follow-up.

desk verdict A solid, useful multi-fidelity screening paper whose headline counts are provisional until the M3GNet-relaxed geometries are validated against DFT relaxation. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11062 v1 pith:ANB6XY27 submitted 2026-08-11 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Jun Meng , Ryan Jacobs , Rehan Kapadia , John Booske This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords workfunctionmachinelearningscreeninguncertaintycalibrationdomainofapplicabilitymulti-fidelitydensityfunctionaltheorysurfaceterminationelectronemission
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 show that extreme work functions—the energy needed to pull an electron out of a surface—can be found at scale by layering cheap machine-learning filters under expensive density-functional-theory checks. It augments a published random-forest work-function predictor with calibrated error bars and an in-domain/out-of-domain guardrail, relaxes the most promising slab surfaces with a universal machine-learned interatomic potential, and confirms the survivors with DFT-PBE. Out of roughly 5.5 million compounds screened, the workflow reports 209 surfaces with DFT work functions below 2.0 eV and 227 surfaces above 6.0 eV, corresponding to 136 and 172 unique materials. If these numbers hold, they give device designers a concrete candidate pool for electron-emitting and hole-injecting materials, and they expose chemical motifs—lanthanide-rich surfaces for low work function, metalloid- or phosphorus-terminated surfaces for high—that extend familiar design rules.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the multi-fidelity funnel: a calibrated random-forest regression model supplies fast per-surface work-function estimates; a kernel-density estimate of the training data supplies a dissimilarity score that rejects out-of-domain predictions at a cutoff of $d=0.97$; a universal machine-learned interatomic potential relaxes the top slab region of candidate surfaces; and targeted static DFT-PBE calculations on the relaxed slabs set the final work function. The funnel's role is to concentrate the expensive DFT budget on surfaces whose ML predictions are both extreme and trustworthy, rather than to replace DFT.

What would settle it

Take the 436 reported surfaces and re-relax each slab with DFT rather than the machine-learned potential, then recompute the work function with the same DFT-PBE settings; if a substantial fraction of surfaces no longer fall below 2.0 eV or above 6.0 eV, the extreme-work-function counts are an artifact of the relaxation proxy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a trust-aware multi-fidelity funnel can replace brute-force DFT screening for surface properties. Starting from roughly 5.5 million bulk compounds in two open computational databases, the authors keep only non-radioactive, thermodynamically stable, metallic compounds, then use an uncertainty-calibrated random-forest model to predict work functions for about 11 million low-index surfaces while flagging predictions outside its training domain. Surfaces passing the domain filter and ranked in the extreme tails are relaxed with a universal machine-learned interatomic potential and re-ranked; finalists receive a static DFT-PBE calculation. The endpoint is a set of 209 surfaces with $\Phi_{\mathrm{DFT}} < 2.0$ eV and 227 surfaces with $\Phi_{\mathrm{DFT}} > 6.0$ eV, with lanthanide-rich terminations over-represented at the low end and metalloid or phosphorus terminations at the high end.

Load-bearing premise

The screening counts stand or fall on the premise that the machine-learned interatomic potential used for relaxation gives geometries close enough to true DFT-relaxed geometries that single-shot DFT work functions on those geometries remain reliable; the paper's own Figure 6 shows relaxation changes predicted work functions by up to 0.5–0.6 eV.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The published list of 209 low- and 227 high-work-function surfaces, mapped to 136 and 172 unique materials, is a directly usable candidate pool for thermionic emitters, field emitters, hole-transport layers, and electron-blocking layers.
  • Surface relaxation moves predicted work functions by up to 0.5–0.6 eV, so any screening pipeline that scores unrelaxed slabs will mis-rank extreme candidates; relaxation must be an explicit stage.
  • Uncertainty calibration plus domain-of-applicability filtering lets a screening campaign deprioritize predictions that are merely extrapolations, which is what makes the 99.8% reduction in search space defensible.
  • Lanthanide-rich surface terminations are a newly emphasized low-work-function motif, and metalloid- or phosphorus-terminated surfaces a high-work-function motif, giving synthetic chemists compositional targets beyond the familiar alkali and alkaline-earth rules.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the final DFT values are single-shot static calculations on machine-learned-relaxed slabs, a full DFT relaxation of a random subset of the 436 surfaces would be the most direct stress test; the paper's own relaxation analysis suggests some fraction of the extreme counts could shift across the thresholds.
  • The lanthanide-rich low-work-function pattern suggests a targeted expansion into lanthanide sulfides, selenides, and pnictides—a chemical neighborhood the current candidates sample sparsely.
  • The same calibrated-ML-plus-domain-filter funnel could be turned on other surface-sensitive quantities, such as cleavage energy or surface energy, where interpolation reliability matters as much as raw accuracy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a multi-fidelity screening workflow for discovering materials with extreme work functions. The authors augment a previously published random forest model for work function prediction with calibrated uncertainty estimates and a domain-of-applicability (DoA) assessment, then screen about 5.5 million compounds from the GNoME and Alexandria databases. After filtering for stability and metallic character, they generate roughly 11 million surfaces, apply the ML model, relax selected slabs with the M3GNet universal interatomic potential, and perform static PBE DFT calculations on about 1.5k relaxed surfaces. They report 209 surfaces (136 materials) with DFT work functions below 2.0 eV and 227 surfaces (172 materials) above 6.0 eV, and they identify chemical trends such as lanthanide-rich terminations favoring low work functions and metalloid or phosphorus terminations favoring high work functions.

Significance. If the reported candidate sets are reliable, they represent a substantial expansion of computationally predicted extreme-work-function materials, with potential impact on thermionic emission, catalysis, and electronic device contacts. The workflow itself is a useful demonstration of combining uncertainty quantification and DoA screening with MLIP-based relaxation and targeted DFT. The paper also makes its data and code publicly available, which supports reproducibility. However, the central quantitative claims rest on the adequacy of M3GNet-relaxed geometries as proxies for DFT-relaxed surfaces, and on the transferability of an RF model trained on unrelaxed surfaces to relaxed geometries; these points are not directly validated in the manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.3, Figs. 6 and 7] The final DFT work functions are computed as single-shot static SCF calculations on M3GNet-relaxed slab geometries, but the manuscript provides no direct validation that M3GNet geometries are accurate proxies for DFT-relaxed surface geometries across the screened chemistry space, including lanthanide-, metalloid-, and phosphorus-terminated surfaces. Figure 6 compares ML predictions on unrelaxed versus M3GNet-relaxed surfaces, and Figure 7 compares ML predictions with DFT on the same M3GNet-relaxed geometry; neither checks the geometry itself against DFT relaxation. Since Figure 6 shows that relaxation can shift predicted work functions by 0.5-0.6 eV for high-work-function surfaces, a systematic M3GNet geometry error of comparable size would directly change which surfaces cross the 2.0 eV and 6.0 eV thresholds, and hence alter the headline counts of 209 and 227. The authors should add a validation set in which a stratified random subset of final candidates is fully relaxed with DFT and the resulting work functions are compared with the static-DFT-on-M3GNet values, or alternatively relax the final candidate slabs with DFT before reporting final work functions.
  2. [Secs. 2.1 and 2.3] The random forest model was trained on DFT work functions of unrelaxed surfaces, yet it is applied to M3GNet-relaxed surfaces for re-prediction after relaxation. The model has never seen relaxed geometries in training, and the features used (interlayer distances, packing fractions, layer angles) change upon relaxation. The manuscript does not demonstrate that the unrelaxed-trained model remains valid for relaxed geometries, nor does it retrain or fine-tune on relaxed-surface data. Because the relaxed-surface ML predictions are used to select which surfaces proceed to DFT, any systematic bias in this transfer could distort the final candidate set. Please either retrain the model on relaxed surfaces, provide evidence that the model transfers reliably (e.g., by benchmarking on a set of DFT-relaxed surfaces with known work functions), or clearly restrict the ML-based selection to unrelaxed features and justify the use of relaxed-geometry predictions.
  3. [Sec. 3.3 and Fig. 5e] The DoA analysis in Figure 5e shows that all training surfaces with work functions above 7 eV are flagged as out-of-domain, yet the workflow explicitly targets high-work-function surfaces above 6.0 eV. The manuscript does not explain how the final high-work-function candidates avoid being flagged as out-of-domain, or how the DoA cutoff interacts with the extreme high-work-function regime. This is not necessarily a fatal flaw, but it needs discussion because the DoA assessment is presented as a guardrail for trustworthy predictions, and the reader needs to know whether the high-work-function candidates are in-domain according to the calibrated DoA metric.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract vs. Introduction] The abstract states 209 low-work-function surfaces below 2.0 eV, while the introduction states 219 such surfaces; Sec. 3.4 and the conclusion both report 209. This is likely a typo in the introduction, but it should be corrected for consistency because the count is a headline result.
  2. [Sec. 3.5 and Fig. 7] The DFT uncertainty is fixed at ±0.1 eV based on an "empirical estimate," but no justification or reference is provided for this value. Since these error bars are used to state that 79% and 81% of points fall within uncertainty bounds, the authors should either justify the ±0.1 eV value with data or present the comparison without fixed error bars.
  3. [Introduction and Conclusion] There are minor language issues: "from the the bulk Fermi level" in the first sentence of the introduction, "We augmented the previously random forest machine learning model" in the conclusion, and a duplicated sentence in the conclusion beginning "We augmented...". These should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported extreme-work-function surfaces are final DFT-PBE results, not ML outputs, and the ML and uncertainty methods are cited published tools.

full rationale

The central claim is the enumeration of 209 low- and 227 high-work-function surfaces. Section 3.4 states that 'These DFT-PBE calculations yielded 209 surfaces with Phi_DFT < 2.0 eV and 227 surfaces with Phi_DFT > 6.0 eV.' These values are computed with VASP from the converged electrostatic potential and Fermi level, not obtained by transforming the Random Forest predictions. The RF model is used only to prune the large surface pool; it does not set the final reported work functions. The uncertainty calibration (Palmer et al.) and domain-of-applicability method (Schultz et al.) are published external methods, and the paper evaluates them on held-out data in Sections 3.2 and 3.3, so they are not fitting the target result. Self-citations to MAST-ML and related group work are tool and method citations; they do not define the extreme-work-function counts. The M3GNet-relaxed geometry followed by single-shot static DFT is a possible accuracy limitation, and the paper's Figure 6 shows relaxation shifts of 0.5-0.6 eV in ML predictions, but this is a correctness risk rather than a circular derivation, because the final DFT values are not equivalent to any fitted input.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This paper introduces no new physical entities and fits no property model itself; it inherits the prior RF model, MAST-ML calibration and domain methods, M3GNet, and a band-gap GNN. The main user-chosen degrees of freedom are screening thresholds and error-bar assignments. The central claim depends on several unvalidated modeling assumptions about transferability of the ML models and M3GNet to new chemistries.

free parameters (3)
  • Domain-of-applicability cutoff d = 0.97
    User-selected threshold in Sec. 3.3 chosen so reduced RMSE is about 0.5; directly controls which surfaces are deprioritized and affects the candidate list.
  • Relaxed-ML thresholds for DFT selection = low: 2.2 eV (GNoME) and 2.0 eV (Alexandria); high: 5.8 eV (both)
    Arbitrary narrowing in Sec. 3.4 to keep DFT tractable; changes which surfaces reach the final calculation.
  • Assigned DFT uncertainty = ±0.1 eV
    Fixed empirical uncertainty for all DFT work functions in Sec. 3.5; used in the 79-81% within-uncertainty coverage claims.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption M3GNet relaxation approximates DFT surface relaxation for the screened chemistries, including alkali, alkaline-earth, lanthanide, metalloid, and phosphorus surfaces.
    Sec. 2.3 relaxes only the top third of each slab with M3GNet and then runs static DFT; no comparison of M3GNet geometries against DFT-relaxed geometries is given.
  • domain assumption The RF model trained on unrelaxed surfaces can predict work functions of relaxed surfaces after descriptors are recomputed.
    Sec. 3.4 uses Phi_ML^relaxed after M3GNet relaxation, but the training data from Schindler et al. are unrelaxed surfaces; this transfer is not retrained or separately validated.
  • domain assumption PBE single-shot SCF with dipole correction gives accurate absolute work functions for novel surfaces.
    Sec. 2.3 sets the final work function from static PBE calculations; no slab-thickness convergence, functional comparison, or systematic error quantification is reported.
  • domain assumption The band-gap graph neural network correctly separates metals from non-metals.
    Sec. 2.2 excludes compounds with predicted HSE-equivalent gap above 0 eV; false exclusions would remove candidate metals and false inclusions would add semiconductors.
  • domain assumption KDE-based domain-of-applicability scores computed on the training feature distribution remain valid for GNoME and Alexandria candidates.
    Sec. 2.2 and Sec. 3.3 apply the d <= 0.97 filter to 11 million new surfaces; this assumes the KDE density estimated from 58,332 training surfaces is representative of the screened space.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Accelerated Discovery of Materials with Extreme Work Functions through Uncertainty-Aware Multi-Fidelity Screening." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ANB6XY27

@misc{pith2026260811062,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Accelerated Discovery of Materials with Extreme Work Functions through Uncertainty-Aware Multi-Fidelity Screening},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ANB6XY27}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11062}
}
read the original abstract

Work function plays a pivotal role in technologies ranging from energy conversion and electronics to catalysis. In this work, we integrated machine learning (ML) with multi-fidelity screening to develop a data-driven framework for accelerating the discovery of materials with extreme work functions. We augmented a previously published Random Forest (RF) model for work function to include prediction uncertainty calibration and domain of applicability assessment to enhance prediction robustness. By combining the augmented RF model with universal ML interatomic potential simulations and targeted ab initio calculations, we screened 5.5 million compounds from the GNoME and Alexandria databases. This workflow identified 209 surfaces with extreme low work functions below 2.0 eV and 227 surfaces with extreme high work functions above 6.0 eV, corresponding to 136 and 172 unique materials, respectively. The resulting candidates revealed trends consistent with established chemical principles, including the tendency of alkali- and alkaline-earth-terminated surfaces to exhibit low work functions. While it also uncovered less conventional motifs: lanthanide-rich surface terminations were strongly associated with extremely low work functions, whereas surfaces containing metalloids or phosphorus at the top layer were correlated with exceptionally high work functions. This work demonstrates a scalable strategy that leverages ML models and multi-fidelity computational efforts to accelerate the discovery of materials with extreme work functions for advanced electronic, energy-conversion, and catalytic applications.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L. Lin, R. Jacobs, T. Ma, D. Chen, J. Booske, D. Morgan, Work Function: Fundamentals, Measurement, Calculation, Engineering, and Applications, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevapplied.19.037001

    doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.19.037001 2023

  2. [2]

    Bellucci, The Quest for Low Work Function Materials: Advances, Challenges, and Opportunities, Crystals (Basel)

    A. Bellucci, The Quest for Low Work Function Materials: Advances, Challenges, and Opportunities, Crystals (Basel). 16 (2026) 47. https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst16010047

    work page doi:10.3390/cryst16010047 2026

  3. [3]

    Z. Chen, T. Ma, W. Wei, W. Wong, C. Zhao, B. Ni, Work Function‐Guided Electrocatalyst Design, Advanced Materials 36 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.202401568

    doi:10.1002/adma.202401568 2024

  4. [4]

    Schindler, E.R

    P. Schindler, E.R. Antoniuk, G. Cheon, Y. Zhu, E.J. Reed, Discovery of Stable Surfaces with Extreme Work Functions by High‐Throughput Density Functional Theory and Machine Learning, Adv. Funct. Mater. 34 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202401764

    doi:10.1002/adfm.202401764 2024

  5. [5]

    Axnanda, M

    S. Axnanda, M. Scheele, E. Crumlin, B. Mao, R. Chang, S. Rani, M. Faiz, S. Wang, A.P. Alivisatos, Z. Liu, Direct work function measurement by gas phase photoelectron spectroscopy and its application on PbS nanoparticles., Nano Letters (Print) (2013). https://doi.org/10.1021/nl403524a

    doi:10.1021/nl403524a 2013

  6. [6]

    Jacobs, D

    R. Jacobs, D. Morgan, J. Booske, Work function and surface stability of tungsten -based thermionic electron emission cathodes, (2017). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5006029

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5006029 2017

  7. [7]

    X. Zhao, J. Wang, X. Niu, High -Throughput Screening Approach for Catalytic Applications through Regulation of Adsorption Energies via Work Function, Langmuir 40 (2024) 26532 –26539. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.langmuir.4c03385

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.langmuir.4c03385 2024

  8. [8]

    Bellucci, D.M

    A. Bellucci, D.M. Trucchi, G. Segev, R. Jacobs, D. Morgan, J. Booske, M.M. Hasan, R. Zulkharnay, N.A. Fox, P.W. May, L.K. Ang, C. Franey, M. Ghashami, A. Mezzi, J.W. Schwede, N.A. Loubet, K. Bezdjian, E. López, A. Datas, M. Jalili, A. Nojeh, E. Rahman, X. Zhang, P. Schindler, E.D. Juette, V.P. Carey, J.-P. Fleurial, M. Mastellone, G. Zheng, L. Wang, G. Xi...

    doi:10.1088/1361-6463/ae611e 2026

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Zhong, P

    Z. Zhong, P. Hansmann, Tuning the work function in transition metal oxides and their heterostructures, Phys. Rev. B 93 (2016) 235116. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.93.235116. 18

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    S. Zhou, W. Pei, Y. Zhao, X. Yang, N. Liu, J. Zhao, Low -dimensional non-metal catalysts: principles for regulating p -orbital-dominated reactivity, NPJ Comput. Mater. 7 (2021) 1 –34. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41524-021-00654-x

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    T. Ma, R. Jacobs, J. Booske, D. Morgan, Discovery and engineering of low work function perovskite materials, J. Mater. Chem. C Mater. 9 (2021) 12778–12790. https://doi.org/10.1039/d1tc01286j

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    Jacobs, J

    R. Jacobs, J. Booske, D. Morgan, Understanding and Controlling the Work Function of Perovskite Oxides Using Density Functional Theory, Adv. Funct. Mater. 26 (2016) 5471 –5482. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.201600243

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    P. Roy, L. Rekhi, S.W. Koh, H. Li, T.S. Choksi, Predicting the work function of 2D MXenes using machine- learning methods, Journal of Physics: Energy 5 (2023) 034005. https://doi.org/10.1088/2515- 7655/acb2f8

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    Shang, Y

    L. Shang, Y. Yang, Y. Yu, P. Xiang, L. Ma, Z. Guo, M. Dai, Stacked machine learning for accurate and interpretable prediction of MXenes’ work function, Journal of Materials Informatics 5 (2025) 52. https://doi.org/10.20517/jmi.2025.36

    2025 doi

  7. [15]

    Xiong, W

    Y. Xiong, W. Chen, W. Guo, H. Wei, I. Dabo, Data -driven analysis of the electronic -structure factors controlling the work functions of perovskite oxides, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 23 (2021) 6880–6887. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0CP05595F

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    Schultz, N.C

    T. Schultz, N.C. Frey, K. Hantanasirisakul, S. Park, S.J. May, V.B. Shenoy, Y. Gogotsi, N. Koch, Surface Termination Dependent Work Function and Electronic Properties of Ti3C2Tx MXene, Chemistry of Materials 31 (2019) 6590–6597. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.9b00414

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    Ahn, T.-H

    S. Ahn, T.-H. Han, K. Maleski, J. Song, Y.-H. Kim, M.-H. Park, H. Zhou, S. Yoo, Y. Gogotsi, T.-W. Lee, A 2D Titanium Carbide MXene Flexible Electrode for High -Efficiency Light -Emitting Diodes, Advanced Materials 32 (2020) 2000919. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.202000919

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    J. Chen, X. Liu, Z. Li, F. Cao, X. Lu, X. Fang, Work -Function-Tunable MXenes Electrodes to Optimize p - CsCu2I3/n-Ca2Nb3-xTaxO10 Junction Photodetectors for Image Sensing and Logic Electronics, Adv. Funct. Mater. 32 (2022) 2201066. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202201066

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    Michaelson, The work function of the elements and its periodicity, J

    H.B. Michaelson, The work function of the elements and its periodicity, J. Appl. Phys. 48 (1977) 4729 –

    1977

  12. [20]

    R. Tran, X. -G. Li, J.H. Montoya, D. Winston, K.A. Persson, S.P. Ong, Anisotropic work function of elemental crystals, Surf. Sci. 687 (2019) 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susc.2019.05.002

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    T. Ma, R. Jacobs, J. Booske, D. Morgan, Understanding the interplay of surface structure and work function in oxides: A case study on SrTiO3, APL Mater. 8 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5143325

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    Leung, C.L

    T.C. Leung, C.L. Kao, W.S. Su, Y.J. Feng, C.T. Chan, Relationship between surface dipole, work function and charge transfer: Some exceptions to an established rule, Phys. Rev. B 68 (2003) 195408. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.68.195408

    2003 doi

  15. [23]

    Horton, P

    M.K. Horton, P. Huck, R.X. Yang, J.M. Munro, S. Dwaraknath, A.M. Ganose, R.S. Kingsbury, M. Wen, J.X. Shen, T.S. Mathis, A.D. Kaplan, K. Berket, J. Riebesell, J. George, A.S. Rosen, E.W.C. Spotte -Smith, M.J. McDermott, O.A. Cohen, A. Dunn, M.C. Kuner, G.-M. Rignanese, G. Petr...

    2025

  16. [24]

    Jain, S.P

    A. Jain, S.P. Ong, G. Hautier, W. Chen, W.D. Richards, S. Dacek, S. Cholia, D. Gunter, D. Skinner, G. Ceder, K.A. Persson, Commentary: The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation, APL Mater. 1 (2013) 11002. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4812323

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    Haastrup, M

    S. Haastrup, M. Strange, M. Pandey, T. Deilmann, P.S. Schmidt, N.F. Hinsche, M.N. Gjerding, D. Torelli, P.M. Larsen, A.C. Riis -Jensen, J. Gath, K.W. Jacobsen, J.J. Mortensen, T. Olsen, K.S. Thygesen, The Computational 2D Materials Database: High -throughput modeling and disco...

    2018 doi

  18. [26]

    Curtarolo, W

    S. Curtarolo, W. Setyawan, G.L.W. Hart, M. Jahnatek, R. V. Chepulskii, R.H. Taylor, S. Wang, J. Xue, K. Yang, O. Levy, M.J. Mehl, H.T. Stokes, D.O. Demchenko, D. Morgan, AFLOW: An automatic framework for high -throughput materials discovery, Comput. Mater. Sci. 58 (2012) 218 –...

    2012 doi

  19. [27]

    Kirklin, J.E

    S. Kirklin, J.E. Saal, B. Meredig, A. Thompson, J.W. Doak, M. Aykol, S. Rühl, C. Wolverton, The Open Quantum Materials Database (OQMD): assessing the accuracy of DFT formation energies, NPJ Comput. Mater. 1 (2015) 15010. https://doi.org/10.1038/npjcompumats.2015.10

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    L. Cui, Q. Li, Y. Zhang, J. Zhang, Z. Wang, J. Chen, B. Zheng, Machine learning -assisted high-throughput screening of transparent organic light -emitting diode anode materials, Chem. Sci. 15 (2024) 19375 – 19389. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4SC05598E

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    Hashimoto, Y

    W. Hashimoto, Y. Tsuji, K. Yoshizawa, Optimization of Work Function via Bayesian Machine Learning Combined with First-Principles Calculation, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 124 (2020) 9958–9970. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.0c01106

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    C. Hsu, C. Schlesinger, K. Mudaliar, J. Leung, R. Walters, P. Schindler, FIRE -GNN: Force -Informed, Relaxed Equivariance Graph Neural Network for Rapid and Accurate Prediction of Surface Properties, Advanced Intelligent Discovery n/a (2025) e202500162. https://doi.org/10.1002...

    2025 doi

  23. [31]

    X.G. Li, B. Blaiszik, M.E. Schwarting, R. Jacobs, A. Scourtas, K.J. Schmidt, P.M. Voyles, D. Morgan, Graph network based deep learning of bandgaps, Journal of Chemical Physics 155 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0066009

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    Merchant, S

    A. Merchant, S. Batzner, S.S. Schoenholz, M. Aykol, G. Cheon, E.D. Cubuk, Scaling deep learning for materials discovery, Nature 624 (2023) 80–85. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06735-9

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    Ghahremanpour, P.J

    M.M. Ghahremanpour, P.J. Van Maaren, D. Van Der Spoel, Data Descriptor: The Alexandria library, a quantum-chemical database of molecular properties for force field development, Sci. Data 5 (2018) 1–

    2018

  26. [34]

    Jacobs, T

    R. Jacobs, T. Mayeshiba, B. Afflerbach, L. Miles, M. Williams, M. Turner, R. Finkel, D. Morgan, The Materials Simulation Toolkit for Machine learning (MAST -ML): An automated open source toolkit to accelerate data -driven materials research, Comput. Mater. S ci. 176 (2020) 109...

    2020

  27. [35]

    https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.62

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    Palmer, S

    G. Palmer, S. Du, A. Politowicz, J.P. Emory, X. Yang, A. Gautam, G. Gupta, Z. Li, R. Jacobs, D. Morgan, Calibration after bootstrap for accurate uncertainty quantification in regression models, NPJ Comput. Mater. 8 (2022) 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41524-022-00794-8

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    Lundberg, S

    S.M. Lundberg, S. -I. Lee, A unified approach to interpreting model predictions, in: Proceedings of the 20 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA, 2017: pp. 4768–4777

    2017

  30. [38]

    Schultz, Y

    L.E. Schultz, Y. Wang, R. Jacobs, D. Morgan, A general approach for determining applicability domain of machine learning models, NPJ Comput. Mater. (2025) 1 –22. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41524 -025- 01573-x

    2025 doi

  31. [39]

    Jacobs, L.E

    R. Jacobs, L.E. Schultz, A. Scourtas, K.J. Schmidt, O. Price -Skelly, W. Engler, I. Foster, B. Blaiszik, P.M. Voyles, D. Morgan, Machine learning materials properties with accurate predictions, uncertainty estimates, domain guidance, and persistent online a ccessibility, Mach....

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    Kresse, D

    G. Kresse, D. Joubert, From ultrasoft pseudopotentials to the projector augmented-wave method, Phys. Rev. B 59 (1999) 1758–1775. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.59.1758

    1999 doi

  33. [41]

    Chen, S.P

    C. Chen, S.P. Ong, A universal graph deep learning interatomic potential for the periodic table, Nat. Comput. Sci. 2 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43588-022-00349-3

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    Kresse, J

    G. Kresse, J. Furthmüller, Efficiency of ab-initio total energy calculations for metals and semiconductors using a plane -wave basis set, Comput. Mater. Sci. 6 (1996) 15 –50. https://doi.org/10.1016/0927- 0256(96)00008-0

    1996 doi

  35. [43]

    Kresse, J

    G. Kresse, J. Furthmüller, Efficient iterative schemes for ab initio total-energy calculations using a plane- wave basis set, Phys. Rev. B 54 (1996) 11169–11186. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.54.11169

    1996 doi

  36. [45]

    Perdew, K

    J. Perdew, K. Burke, M. Ernzerhof, Generalized Gradient Approximation Made Simple, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 3865–3868. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3865

    1996 doi

  37. [4733]

    https://doi.org/10.1063/1.323539

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.