Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

CuXASNet: Rapid and Accurate Prediction of Copper L-edge X-Ray Absorption Spectra Using Machine Learning

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A neural network predicts Cu L-edge X-ray absorption spectra from atomic structure at FEFF9 accuracy.

desk verdict Useful FEFF9 surrogate for Cu L-edge XAS with solid internal validation, but the 14-spectrum experimental equivalence claim is undercut by an unstated energy-alignment protocol. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02916 v1 pith:DUZAUV7K submitted 2024-12-03 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Samuel P. Gleason , Matthew R. Carbone , Deyu Lu , Jim Ciston This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords CuL-edgeX-rayabsorptionspectroscopymachinelearningspectralpredictionM3GNetfeaturizationFEFF9multiple-scatteringsimulationdenseneuralnetworkstructure-spectrumrelationshipXANEStransitionmetal
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

CuXASNet is a machine-learning model that claims to predict the Cu L3 and L2 X-ray absorption near-edge spectra of a material directly from its atomic structure, replacing the computationally expensive multiple-scattering simulations of FEFF9. The paper argues that a 64-dimensional site embedding from M3GNet, fed through a small dense neural network, captures the local Cu environment well enough to reproduce FEFF9 spectra with a median test-set MAE of 0.0391. The decisive evidence is transfer to experiment: on fourteen spectra extracted from the literature, CuXASNet achieves an average MAE of 0.125 and Spearman correlation 0.891, essentially matching FEFF9's own averages of 0.131 and 0.898. If this holds, the model can generate large Cu L-edge spectral databases in minutes, which matters because most Cu-containing structures in the Materials Project currently lack simulated L-edge spectra.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the M3GNet-derived 64-dimensional site vector: for each symmetrically unique Cu absorber, M3GNet's graph representation of the unit cell is evaluated before its readout layer, and the resulting node features are the sole input to CuXASNet. The spectral branch is a pair of fully connected networks with hidden layers of 120, 240 and 480 units and ReLU activations, a softmax output layer spanning 312 energy points, and separate weights for the L3 and L2 edges. FEFF9 provides the training signal at the multiple-scattering level of theory; the interpolated 0.2 eV grid and fixed energy windows standardize the output. What the machinery does is compress the structure-spectrum relationship into a learned map from a local-environment embedding to a normalized intensity profile.

What would settle it

A decisive test: find two distinct Cu coordination environments that receive exactly the same 64-dimensional M3GNet embedding but produce measurably different FEFF9 L3 spectra; because CuXASNet is a deterministic function of that vector, it would be unable to distinguish them, falsifying the claim that the embedding contains the spectral information. A practical approximation is to train the same network from an alternative local-environment descriptor on the same split and show a significantly lower test MAE, which would disprove the sufficiency of the M3GNet featurization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim of the paper is that the Cu L-edge X-ray absorption spectrum is, for practical purposes, a function of a short vector encoding the absorbing site's local atomic environment: specifically, the 64-dimensional node embedding produced by M3GNet. Trained on 4,123 of 5,497 site-specific FEFF9 multiple-scattering spectra, two dense networks (one for L3, one for L2) predict the full 312-point spectrum on a 0.2 eV grid. The paper reports median test-set MAE of 0.0391, edge-onset errors that are exact or within a grid step for most spectra, and, in the experimental validation, aggregate errors indistinguishable from FEFF9's own. The authors present this as establishing CuXASNet as a drop-in replacement for FEFF9 in screening candidate structures against measured spectra, including structures outside its crystalline training distribution.

Load-bearing premise

The claim collapses if M3GNet's 64-dimensional embedding of a Cu site does not contain enough information about the local atomic environment to determine the L-edge spectrum; the paper takes this representation as fixed and does not ablate or compare it against alternative featurizations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • CuXASNet can generate thousands of Cu L3/L2 spectra per minute, so most Cu-containing Materials Project structures without L-edge spectra could be populated at FEFF9-equivalent quality without running FEFF9.
  • Experimental analysis can use CuXASNet as a fast filter: candidate structural models of an unknown Cu material are screened against a measured spectrum before expensive FEFF9 refinement, since the ML-versus-experiment error is statistically the same as FEFF9-versus-experiment.
  • The data-scaling result, accuracy plateauing after roughly 500 training spectra, indicates that the same architecture can be retrained on more expensive levels of theory with a computationally feasible dataset.
  • The successful prediction for a peroxo-Cu(II) organometallic complex implies the embedding generalizes beyond crystalline periodic structures, extending the model's use to molecular Cu sites.
  • Because the two worst outliers are antiperovskites with unusual FEFF9 spectra, the model's reliability is chemistry-dependent and its limits cluster around rare coordination motifs rather than being uniform.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Since CuXASNet only learns to imitate FEFF9, its agreement with experiment is capped by FEFF9's own systematic errors: any level-of-theory deficiency in the multiple-scattering method will be inherited by the network, so the model cannot be expected to improve on FEFF9 for elements such as Ti or Fe where FEFF9 is known to be weaker.
  • The absence of a featurizer ablation leaves open that a cheaper or more physically interpretable descriptor could match or beat the M3GNet embedding; a head-to-head comparison against SOAP or atom-centered symmetry functions on the same 5,497 labels would settle where the accuracy resides.
  • The model's speed invites an inverse-design loop not implemented in the paper: search over structures or dopant configurations to match a target experimental spectrum, then validate the top hits with full simulation.
  • Extension to other 3d transition-metal L-edges will require new training labels but, if the data-scaling trend holds, would need only a few thousand spectra per element, a modest simulation budget relative to database-scale studies.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces CuXASNet, a dense neural network that predicts Cu L3- and L2-edge X-ray absorption spectra from a 64-dimensional M3GNet embedding of the absorbing Cu site. The model is trained on 5497 FEFF9 multiple-scattering spectra of Cu-containing materials, and the authors report median test-set MAE of 0.0391, accurate edge-onset prediction to within 0.2 eV for roughly half of the test set, and agreement with FEFF9 across oxidation states, coordination numbers, and neighbor types. The external validation uses 14 experimental spectra digitized from the literature, for which the authors report an average MAE of 0.125 and Spearman correlation of 0.891, comparable to the FEFF9 values of 0.131 and 0.898. The authors also demonstrate a molecular example outside the crystalline training distribution and analyze how model accuracy scales with training-set size.

Significance. If the claims hold, CuXASNet would be a useful, fast surrogate for FEFF9 L-edge simulations, enabling structure screening and rapid generation of reference spectra for Cu systems. The internal validation against FEFF9 is strong and clearly presented: the test-set MAE distributions, edge-location histograms, and error breakdown by chemical environment give a convincing picture of surrogate accuracy. The experimental comparison is potentially valuable evidence that the model is not systematically worse than FEFF9, but its current lack of methodological detail limits the strength of the external claim. The paper also provides useful scaling data on training-set size and an honest discussion of outlier classes such as antiperovskites.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sections II.D and III.D] The manuscript does not state whether the simulated energy axes were aligned to the experimental axes before computing MAE and Spearman correlation. Section III.G explicitly mentions manually aligning the L3 peak for the molecular comparison, which is standard practice for FEFF9 L-edge calculations because their absolute energy scale is not directly transferable to experiment. If no such alignment was applied to the 14 literature spectra, a uniform energy offset could substantially change both metrics, and the claimed equivalence between CuXASNet and FEFF9 might reflect a shared systematic offset rather than true spectral accuracy. Please specify the alignment procedure used for all 14 spectra, report any alignment shifts, and provide metrics both with and without alignment.
  2. [Section III.D] The external validation is summarized only by averages over 14 spectra, with no per-spectrum table and no uncertainty estimates. Figure 5(d) shows the distribution of MAE values, but the reader cannot tell which systems drive the average, whether any single spectrum is an outlier, or whether the FEFF9 and CuXASNet values are statistically distinguishable. Provide a table with per-spectrum MAE and Spearman correlation for both methods, together with the experimental energy range used for each system and the corresponding digitization source.
  3. [Sections II.C and III.B] The train/test split is not described. The paper reports that the test set contains 1375 spectra but does not state how the split was constructed (e.g., random by spectrum, random by material, stratified by oxidation state) or whether test structures can share near-duplicate local environments with training structures. This detail is load-bearing for the central claim that CuXASNet generalizes to new atomic structures, and it should be stated explicitly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] Several typos should be cleaned up: 'igure S4' is missing the capital F, 'epocs' should be 'epochs', 'principle component' should be 'principal component', and 'For for biological' has a duplicated word.
  2. [Section III.C and Figure 4] The text refers to bar plots in Figure 4(a-b) and two-dimensional histograms in Figure 4(c-d), but the figure caption and the actual panel arrangement appear to place the two-dimensional histograms in (a-b) and the bar plots in (c-d). Please correct the subplot references so the text matches the figure.
  3. [Section V] The data and code repository is described as private and 'will be shared upon request.' For a reproducibility claim, the authors should either make the repository accessible to reviewers before publication or provide a review copy, since the paper's central results depend on the exact training and evaluation pipeline.
  4. [Section II.D] The description of experimental data extraction is thin: the authors cite webplotdigitizer and the source references, but do not state which curve from each reference was digitized, how the smoothing broadening function was chosen, or how the intensity normalization was performed before computing MAE. A short supplementary table or paragraph would make the experimental comparison reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: CuXASNet is a supervised surrogate for FEFF9, and its experimental comparison is an external benchmark; the only same-author citations are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's core claim is that a neural network trained on FEFF9 multiple-scattering spectra reproduces those spectra on held-out structures and achieves experimental agreement comparable to FEFF9. This is a regression against an external simulation code, not a quantity defined by the model inputs: the FEFF9 target spectra in the test set are not used in training (Section II.B), and the 14 experimental spectra are independent literature data (Section II.D). The M3GNet featurizer (Ref. 60) is a fixed, pretrained graph neural network representation, not fitted to XAS data, so the featurization is not constructed from the target spectra. The same-author citations (Ref. 10 for featurizer benchmarking, Ref. 45 for the simulated dataset and Ref. 61 for the Lightshow workflow) support methodological choices and data provenance, but the quantitative conclusions do not reduce to them: held-out FEFF9 MAE and external experimental MAE/Spearman values are reported and are falsifiable. The absence of an explicit energy-alignment protocol for the 14 spectra (Section II.D vs. the manual alignment in Section III.G) is a legitimate external-validity concern, but it is not a circularity, since no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. No equation in the paper defines the predicted spectrum as the training input, and no fitted quantity is presented as an independent first-principles result. Score 2 reflects the presence of minor same-author citations (notably Refs. 10 and 45) that are ancillary rather than load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result depends on four domain assumptions, no invented physical entities, and one set of manually chosen hyperparameters. The FEFF9 accuracy and M3GNet featurizer sufficiency are the most consequential; the experimental comparison only partially validates the former, and the latter is not tested directly.

free parameters (1)
  • Neural network hyperparameters = hidden layers: 120, 240, 480; batch size: 10; epochs: 500
    Chosen by hand; the paper reports that batch size and epoch count have minimal impact on the median MAE (less than 2% variation), so their influence on the central claim is low.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption FEFF9 multiple-scattering theory provides accurate Cu L-edge spectra
    Training labels are FEFF9 spectra; the experimental comparison (14 spectra) gives an average MAE of 0.131, providing partial support, but accuracy is not guaranteed across all Cu environments. Invoked throughout, e.g., Section II.A.
  • domain assumption M3GNet 64-dim node embedding is a sufficient representation of the local Cu environment for spectral prediction
    The entire method rests on this featurization sufficiency; no ablation or comparison to other featurizers is provided in this paper. Invoked in Section II.B and Figure 1.
  • domain assumption The training set of 5497 spectra is representative of Cu chemical environments in practice
    The dataset is filtered to stable/synthesized Materials Project structures; the two antiperovskite outliers (Mn3CuN, Ni3CuN) show coverage gaps. Invoked in Section II.A and Section III.E.
  • domain assumption The 14 literature experimental spectra are correctly digitized and energy-aligned with the simulated spectra
    Digitization used webplotdigitizer and a broadening function, but no energy alignment procedure is described for the 14 materials; the comparison assumes the FEFF9 and experimental energy scales coincide. Invoked in Section II.D.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CuXASNet: Rapid and Accurate Prediction of Copper L-edge X-Ray Absorption Spectra Using Machine Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DUZAUV7K

@misc{pith2026241202916,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CuXASNet: Rapid and Accurate Prediction of Copper L-edge X-Ray Absorption Spectra Using Machine Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DUZAUV7K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02916}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we have developed CuXASNet, a dense neural network that predicts simulated Cu L-edge X-ray absorption spectra (XAS) from atomic structures. Featurization of the Cu local environment is performed using a component of M3GNet, a graph neural network developed for predicting the potential energy surface. CuXASNet is trained on simulated spectra from FEFF9 at the multiple scattering level of theory, and can predict the L3 and L2 edges for Cu sites to quantitative accuracy. To validate our approach, we compare 14 experimental spectra extracted from the literature with the predictions of CuXASNet. The agreement of CuXASNet with experiments is shown by an average MAE of 0.125 and an average Spearman's correlation coefficient of 0.891, which is comparable to FEFF9's values of 0.131 and 0.898 for the same metrics. As such, CuXASNet can rapidly generate a large number of L-edge XAS spectra at the same accuracy as FEFF9 simulations. This can be used as a drop-in replacement for multiple scattering codes for fast screening of candidate atomic structure models of a measured system. This model establishes a general framework for Cu XAS prediction, and can be extended to more computationally expensive levels of theory and to other transition metal L-edges.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02916 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Outline of the CuXASNet model architecture. A structure object of a Cu containing material from the Materials [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Illustration of the data spread in our spectral dataset. Each row shows a principle component analysis (PCA) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Waterfall plots showcasing the accuracy of our model at reproducing spectra simulated with FEFF9. (a-b) show decile [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Accuracy of CuXASNet in predicting the FEFF9 simulated edge onset location of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Performance of CuXASNet when compared to experimental spectra. Comparisons between FEFF9 simulations (blue), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The accuracy of CuXASNet when predicting Cu spectra with different nearest neighbor elemental configurations. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Accuracy of the model, as determined by the median MAE, when the model is applied to the test set using different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. An application of our CuXASNet model to an uncommon and complicated Cu organometallic structure, extracted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

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

    cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    XAStruct learns both structure-to-spectrum and spectrum-to-structure mappings for X-ray absorption spectroscopy across more than 70 elements, including the first reported ML prediction of neighbor atom types from spectra.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    De Groot and A

    F. De Groot and A. Kotani, Core Level Spectroscopy of Solids (CRC Press, 2008)

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    F. M. F. de Groot, J. C. Fuggle, B. T. Thole, and G. A. Sawatzky, Physical Review B 42, 5459 (1990)

    work page 1990

  3. [3]

    Y. Bai, Y. Wu, X. Zhou, Y. Ye, K. Nie, J. Wang, M. Xie, Z. Zhang, Z. Liu, T. Cheng, and C. Gao, Nature Com- munications 13 (2022), 10.1038/s41467-022-33846-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-022-33846-0 2022

  4. [4]

    Kubin, M

    M. Kubin, M. Guo, T. Kroll, H. Lochel, E. Kallman, M. L. Baker, R. Mitzner, S. Gul, J. Kern, A. Fohlisch, A. Erko, U. Bergmann, V. Yachandra, J. Yano, M. Lund- berg, and P. Wernet, Chemical Science 9, 6813 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Marelli, J

    E. Marelli, J. Lyu, M. Morin, M. Lem´ enager, T. Shang, N. S. Y¨ uzbasi, D. Aegerter, J. Huang, N. D. Daff´ e, A. H. Clark, D. Sheptyakov, T. Graule, M. Nachtegaal, E. Pomjakushina, T. J. Schmidt, M. Krack, E. Fabbri, and M. Medarde, EES Catalysis 2, 335 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    P lacheta, A

    K. P lacheta, A. Kot, J. Banas-Gac, M. Zaj¸ ac, M. Sikora, M. Radecka, and K. Zakrzewska, Applied Surface Sci- ence 608 (2023), 10.1016/j.apsusc.2022.155046

    work page arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Jenkins, J

    T. Jenkins, J. A. Alarco, B. Cowie, and I. D. Mackinnon, Journal of Power Sources 571 (2023), 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2023.233078

    work page arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Yano and V

    J. Yano and V. K. Yachandra, Photosynthesis Research 102, 241 (2009)

    work page 2009

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    S. P. Ong, S. Cholia, A. Jain, M. Brafman, D. Gunter, G. Ceder, and K. A. Persson, Computational Materials Science 97, 209 (2015)

    2015

  2. [10]

    A universal deep learning framework for materi- als x-ray absorption spectra,

    S. R. Kharel, F. Meng, X. Qu, M. R. Carbone, and D. Lu, “A universal deep learning framework for materi- als x-ray absorption spectra,” (2024), arXiv:2409.19552 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    K. M. P. Wheelhouse, R. L. Webster, and G. L. Beut- ner, Organic Process Research & Development 27, 1157 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    K. E. Dalle, J. Warnan, J. J. Leung, B. Reuillard, I. S. Karmel, and E. Reisner, Chemical Reviews 119, 2752 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    W. Gao, Y. Xu, L. Fu, X. Chang, and B. Xu, Nature Catalysis 6, 885 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    M. B. Gawande, A. Goswami, F. X. Felpin, T. Asefa, X. Huang, R. Silva, X. Zou, R. Zboril, and R. S. Varma, Chemical Reviews 116, 3722 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    Dervaux and F

    B. Dervaux and F. E. Du Prez, Chemical Science 3, 959 (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    Astruc, L

    D. Astruc, L. Liang, A. Rapakousiou, and J. Ruiz, Ac- counts of Chemical Research 45, 630 (2012)

    2012

  9. [17]

    J. K. Mccusker, Science 363, 484 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    Y. Liu, S. C. Yiu, C. L. Ho, and W. Y. Wong, Coordi- nation Chemistry Reviews 375, 514 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    M. B. Frye and L. M. Garten, Accounts of Materials Re- search 4, 906 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    O’Regan and M

    B. O’Regan and M. Gr¨ atzel, Nature353, 737 (1991)

    1991

  13. [21]

    A. K. Renfrew, E. S. O’Neill, T. W. Hambley, and E. J. New, Coordination Chemistry Reviews 375, 221 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Graham, A

    C. Graham, A. Mezzadrelli, W. Senaratne, S. Pal, D. Thelen, L. Hepburn, P. Mazumder, and V. Pruneri, Communications Materials 5 (2024), 10.1038/s43246- 024-00472-w

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    S. Wang, H. Wu, K. Sun, J. Hu, F. Chen, W. Liu, J. Chen, B. Sun, and A. M. S. Hossain, New Journal of Chemistry 45, 3271 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    R. Cui, P. Zhao, Y. Yan, G. Bao, A. Damirin, and Z. Liu, Inorganic Chemistry 60, 1664 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    M. L. Baker, M. W. Mara, J. J. Yan, K. O. Hodgson, B. Hedman, and E. I. Solomon, Coordination Chemistry Reviews 345, 182 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    Gianoncelli, L

    A. Gianoncelli, L. Vaccari, G. Kourousias, D. Cass- ese, D. E. Bedolla, S. Kenig, P. Storici, M. Laz- zarino, and M. Kiskinova, Scientific Reports 5 (2015), 10.1038/srep10250

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    Cibin, D

    G. Cibin, D. Gianolio, S. A. Parry, T. Schoonjans, O. Moore, R. Draper, L. A. Miller, A. Thoma, C. L. Doswell, and A. Graham, Radiation Physics and Chem- istry 175 (2020), 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2019.108479. 12

    2020

  20. [28]

    IXAS XAFS Database,

    C. Segre, “IXAS XAFS Database,” (2008)

    2008

  21. [29]

    Y. Chen, C. Chen, C. Zheng, S. Dwaraknath, M. K. Hor- ton, J. Cabana, J. Rehr, J. Vinson, A. Dozier, J. J. Kas, K. A. Persson, and S. P. Ong, Scientific Data 8 (2021), 10.1038/s41597-021-00936-5

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    Vinson, J

    J. Vinson, J. J. Rehr, J. J. Kas, and E. L. Shirley, Phys- ical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 83 (2011), 10.1103/PhysRevB.83.115106

    2011 doi

  23. [31]

    Vinson, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 24, 12787 (2022)

    J. Vinson, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 24, 12787 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Zheng, C

    C. Zheng, C. Chen, Y. Chen, and S. P. Ong, Patterns 1 (2020), 10.1016/j.patter.2020.100013

    2020

  25. [33]

    M. R. Carbone, F. Meng, C. Vorwerk, B. Maurer, F. Peschel, X. Qu, E. Stavitski, C. Draxl, J. Vinson, and D. Lu, Journal of Open Source Software 8, 5182 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Rehr, Joshua J

    John J. Rehr, Joshua J. Kas, Fernando D. Vila, Micah P. Prange, and Kevin Jorissen, Physical Chemistry Chem- ical Physics 12, 5503 (2010)

    2010

  27. [35]

    A. Jain, S. P. Ong, G. Hautier, W. Chen, W. D. Richards, S. Dacek, S. Cholia, D. Gunter, D. Skinner, G. Ceder, and others, APL materials 1 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    Zheng, K

    C. Zheng, K. Mathew, C. Chen, Y. Chen, H. Tang, A. Dozier, J. J. Kas, F. D. Vila, J. J. Rehr, L. F. Piper, K. A. Persson, and S. P. Ong, npj Computational Ma- terials 4 (2018), 10.1038/s41524-018-0067-x

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    Mathew, C

    K. Mathew, C. Zheng, D. Winston, C. Chen, A. Dozier, J. J. Rehr, S. P. Ong, and K. A. Persson, Scientific Data 5 (2018), 10.1038/sdata.2018.151

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    Gilmore, J

    K. Gilmore, J. Vinson, E. L. Shirley, D. Prendergast, C. D. Pemmaraju, J. J. Kas, F. D. Vila, and J. J. Rehr, Computer Physics Communications 197, 109 (2015)

    2015

  31. [39]

    S. B. Torrisi, M. R. Carbone, B. A. Rohr, J. H. Montoya, Y. Ha, J. Yano, S. K. Suram, and L. Hung, npj Compu- tational Materials 6 (2020), 10.1038/s41524-020-00376-6

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    Timoshenko, D

    J. Timoshenko, D. Lu, Y. Lin, and A. I. Frenkel, Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 8, 5091 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    Tetef, N

    S. Tetef, N. Govind, and G. T. Seidler, Physical Chem- istry Chemical Physics 23, 23586 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    Tetef, V

    S. Tetef, V. Kashyap, W. M. Holden, A. Velian, N. Govind, and G. T. Seidler, Journal of Physical Chem- istry A 126, 4862 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Higashi and H

    M. Higashi and H. Ikeno, MATERIALS TRANSAC- TIONS 64, 2179 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    M. R. Carbone, P. M. Maffettone, X. Qu, S. Yoo, and D. Lu, Journal of Physical Chemistry A128, 1948 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    S. P. Gleason, D. Lu, and J. Ciston, npj Computational Materials 10, 221 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Chatzidakis and G

    M. Chatzidakis and G. A. Botton, Scientific Reports 9 (2019), 10.1038/s41598-019-38482-1

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    del Pozo-Bueno, D

    D. del Pozo-Bueno, D. Kepaptsoglou, F. Peir´ o, and S. Estrad´ e, Ultramicroscopy253, 113828 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    David, N

    T. David, N. K. Nik Aznan, K. Garside, and T. Penfold, Digital Discovery 2, 1461 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    S. A. Guda, A. S. Algasov, A. A. Guda, A. Martini, A. N. Kravtsova, A. L. Bugaev, L. V. Guda, and A. V. Solda- tov, Journal of Surface Investigation 15, 934 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    A. A. Guda, S. A. Guda, A. Martini, A. N. Kravtsova, A. Algasov, A. Bugaev, S. P. Kubrin, L. V. Guda, P. ˇSot, J. A. van Bokhoven, C. Cop´ eret, and A. V. Soldatov, npj Computational Materials 7 (2021), 10.1038/s41524-021- 00664-9

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    Z. Ji, M. Hu, and H. L. Xin, Scientific Reports 13, 14132 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    Y. Chen, C. Chen, I. Hwang, M. J. Davis, W. Yang, C. Sun, G. H. Lee, D. McReynolds, D. Allan, J. Maru- landa Arias, S. P. Ong, and M. K. Chan, Chemistry of Materials 36, 2304 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    C. D. Rankine, M. M. Madkhali, M. M. Madkhali, and T. J. Penfold, Journal of Physical Chemistry A124, 4263 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    C. D. Rankine and T. J. Penfold, Journal of Chemical Physics 156 (2022), 10.1063/5.0087255

    2022 doi

  47. [55]

    Watson, C

    L. Watson, C. D. Rankine, and T. J. Penfold, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 24, 9156 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    Hafner, Journal of Computational Chemistry 29, 2044 (2008)

    J. Hafner, Journal of Computational Chemistry 29, 2044 (2008)

    2008

  49. [57]

    M. W. Haverkort, M. Zwierzycki, and O. K. Andersen, Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 85 (2012), 10.1103/PhysRevB.85.165113

    2012 doi

  50. [58]

    H. Kwon, T. Hsu, W. Sun, W. Jeong, F. Aydin, J. Chap- man, X. Chen, M. R. Carbone, D. Lu, F. Zhou, and T. A. Pham, (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    H. Kwon, W. Sun, T. Hsu, W. Jeong, F. Aydin, S. Sharma, F. Meng, M. R. Carbone, X. Chen, D. Lu, L. F. Wan, M. H. Nielsen, and T. A. Pham, Journal of Physical Chemistry C 127, 16473 (2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    Chen and S

    C. Chen and S. P. Ong, Nature Computational Science 2, 718 (2022)

    2022

  53. [61]

    F. Meng, B. Maurer, F. Peschel, S. Selcuk, M. Hybert- sen, X. Qu, C. Vorwerk, C. Draxl, J. Vinson, and D. Lu, Physical Review Materials 8 (2024), 10.1103/PhysRev- Materials.8.013801

    2024 doi

  54. [62]

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, (2014)

    2014

  55. [63]

    Marin, A

    F. Marin, A. Rohatgi, and S. Charlot, (2017)

    2017

  56. [64]

    S. W. Goh, A. N. Buckley, R. N. Lamb, R. A. Rosenberg, and D. Moran, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 70, 2210 (2006)

    2006

  57. [65]

    R. Liu, J. Chen, P. Nachimuthu, R. Gundakaram, C. Jung, J. Kim, and S. Lee, Solid State Communi- cations 118, 367 (2001)

    2001

  58. [66]

    A. N. Buckley, W. M. Skinner, S. L. Harmer, A. Pring, and L. J. Fan, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 73, 4452 (2009)

    2009

  59. [67]

    Glaser, F

    M. Glaser, F. Ciccullo, E. Giangrisostomi, R. Ovsyan- nikov, A. Calzolari, and M. B. Casu, Journal of Materials Chemistry C 6, 2769 (2018)

    2018

  60. [68]

    B. W. Rudyk, P. E. Blanchard, R. G. Cavell, and A. Mar, Journal of Solid State Chemistry 184, 1649 (2011)

    2011

  61. [69]

    P. E. Blanchard, R. G. Cavell, and A. Mar, Journal of Solid State Chemistry 183, 1536 (2010)

    2010

  62. [70]

    Grioni, J

    M. Grioni, J. F. Van Acker, M. T. Czyzyk, and J. C. Fuggle, PHYSICAL REVIEW B 45, 3309 (1992)

    1992

  63. [71]

    M. R. Carbone, S. Yoo, M. Topsakal, and D. Lu, Physi- cal Review Materials 3 (2019), 10.1103/PhysRevMateri- als.3.033604

    2019 doi

  64. [72]

    Kitajima, K

    N. Kitajima, K. Fujisawa, C. Fujimoto, Y. Moro-oka, S. Hashimoto, T. Kitagawa, K. Toriumi, K. Tatsumi, and A. Nakamura, J. Am. Chem. Soc 114, 1277 (1992)

    1992

  65. [73]

    M. F. Qayyum, R. Sarangi, K. Fujisawa, T. D. P. Stack, K. D. Karlin, K. O. Hodgson, B. Hedman, and E. I. Solomon, Journal of the American Chemical Society135, 17417 (2013). 13 2.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 Non Integer Oxidation State 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000Count 4 12 6 5Faile...

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.