Benchmarking machine-learned potentials for adsorption on Pt and $$\textrm{IrO}_2$$ surfaces using OC20 and OMat24

Machine Learning Interatomic Potentials (MLIPs) enable first-principles accuracy in modeling complex catalytic interfaces at reduced cost. The Open Catalyst 2020 (OC20) and Open Materials 2024 (OMat24) datasets consist of density functional theory (DFT) data for adsorbates on metals and inorganic bulk materials, respectively. In this work, we benchmarked the Universal Model for Atoms (UMA) trained on the OC20 and OMat24 datasets with DFT calculations for adsorption energies on Pt and $$\\textrm{IrO}_2$$ , respectively. We evaluated adsorption energies of common adsorbates such as *H, *O, *CO, and *NO on Pt, and reaction intermediates in the water splitting reaction, such as *O, *OH, and *H, on $$\\textrm{IrO}_2$$ . UMA-OC20, trained using non-spin polarized DFT-RPBE energies with no van der Waals (vdW) corrections on metallic surfaces, reproduced the adsorption energies from the same flavor of DFT within 0.1 eV. However, the energy difference between UMA-OC20 and spin-polarized DFT was $$\\sim $$ 1.2 eV, with the difference mainly arising from the reference gases. UMA-OMat24, trained using spin-polarized DFT-PBE with vdW corrections, predicted adsorption energies within 0.3 eV of the energies from the same flavor of DFT on $$\\textrm{IrO}_2$$ . When both the DFT flavor and geometry were kept fixed between the MLIPs and DFT, UMA-OC20 and UMA-OMat24 predicted adsorption energies within 0.1 and 0.2 eV of their corresponding DFT adsorption energies, respectively. The norm of coordinate differences between UMA-OC20 and DFT was $$\\sim $$ 0.1 Å for a system size of $$\\sim $$ 20 atoms, while it was < 0.6 Å for a system size of $$\\sim $$ 60 atoms, between UMA-OMat24 and DFT. MLIP requires considerably fewer ( $$\\sim 10^3-10^4$$ times less) CPU-hours compared to DFT for geometry optimization. Thus, we recommend opting for an MLIP-followed-by-DFT procedure, as it not only reduces the total compute time but also ensures accurate geometry and energies.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Discover Chemistry.
Published
2026-07-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s44371-026-00865-5
Primary Topic
Machine Learning in Materials Science
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Benchmarking machine-learned potentials for adsorption on Pt and $$\textrm{IrO}_2$$ surfaces using OC20 and OMat24

Fabrice Roncoroni, Aditi S. Krishnapriyan, Asmita Jana, Jin Qian et al.
Discover Chemistry.
Machine Learning in Materials Science
article

Benchmarking machine-learned potentials for adsorption on Pt and $$\textrm{IrO}_2$$ surfaces using OC20 and OMat24

Fabrice Roncoroni, Aditi S. Krishnapriyan, Asmita Jana, Jin Qian, Ethan J. Crumlin, Julie Fornaciari, Adam Z. Weber, David Prendergast
article en

Abstract

Machine Learning Interatomic Potentials (MLIPs) enable first-principles accuracy in modeling complex catalytic interfaces at reduced cost. The Open Catalyst 2020 (OC20) and Open Materials 2024 (OMat24) datasets consist of density functional theory (DFT) data for adsorbates on metals and inorganic bulk materials, respectively. In this work, we benchmarked the Universal Model for Atoms (UMA) trained on the OC20 and OMat24 datasets with DFT calculations for adsorption energies on Pt and $$\textrm{IrO}_2$$ , respectively. We evaluated adsorption energies of common adsorbates such as *H, *O, *CO, and *NO on Pt, and reaction intermediates in the water splitting reaction, such as *O, *OH, and *H, on $$\textrm{IrO}_2$$ . UMA-OC20, trained using non-spin polarized DFT-RPBE energies with no van der Waals (vdW) corrections on metallic surfaces, reproduced the adsorption energies from the same flavor of DFT within 0.1 eV. However, the energy difference between UMA-OC20 and spin-polarized DFT was $$\sim $$ 1.2 eV, with the difference mainly arising from the reference gases. UMA-OMat24, trained using spin-polarized DFT-PBE with vdW corrections, predicted adsorption energies within 0.3 eV of the energies from the same flavor of DFT on $$\textrm{IrO}_2$$ . When both the DFT flavor and geometry were kept fixed between the MLIPs and DFT, UMA-OC20 and UMA-OMat24 predicted adsorption energies within 0.1 and 0.2 eV of their corresponding DFT adsorption energies, respectively. The norm of coordinate differences between UMA-OC20 and DFT was $$\sim $$ 0.1 Å for a system size of $$\sim $$ 20 atoms, while it was < 0.6 Å for a system size of $$\sim $$ 60 atoms, between UMA-OMat24 and DFT. MLIP requires considerably fewer ( $$\sim 10^3-10^4$$ times less) CPU-hours compared to DFT for geometry optimization. Thus, we recommend opting for an MLIP-followed-by-DFT procedure, as it not only reduces the total compute time but also ensures accurate geometry and energies.

Discover Chemistry.Vol. 3(1)
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (US), University of California, Berkeley (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 18%
Machine Learning in Materials Science
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.