Benchmarking universal machine learning interatomic potentials for supported nanoparticles: decoupling energy accuracy from structural exploration
Source abstract
Abstract
Supported nanoparticle catalysts are widely used in the chemical industry. Computational modeling of supported nanoparticles based on density functional theory (DFT) often involves structural searches of stable local minimum energy configurations and molecular dynamics simulations at finite temperature. These are computationally demanding tasks that are intractable within DFT for large systems. In the last two decades, machine learning interatomic potentials (MLIPs) have been successfully used to substantially increase the size and time scales accessible to simulations approximating DFT accuracy. However, training reliable MLIPs is non-trivial as it requires many costly DFT calculations. Recently, several universal MLIPs (uMLIPs) have been developed, which are trained on large datasets that cover a wide range of molecules and materials. Here, we benchmark the accuracy and the efficiency of these uMLIPs in describing Cu nanoparticles supported on Al 2 O 3 surfaces against our domain-specific DP-UniAlCu model. We find that the MACE-OMAT can reproduce reasonably well the low-energy structures found in global optimization at an energy accuracy comparable to DP-UniAlCu. Interestingly, the MatterSim-v1.0.0-1M model, which exhibits larger deviations in the binding energies, can find even more stable configurations than the other two models in some supported nanoparticle sizes, showing its capability in structure exploration. For MD simulations, MACE-OMAT and MatterSim-v1.0.0-1M can qualitatively reproduce the mean-squared displacements of Cu atoms (MSD Cu ) predicted by DP-UniAlCu, albeit at roughly two orders of magnitude higher cost. We demonstrate that the uMLIPs can be very useful in simulating supported nanoparticles even without any fine-tuning, though their reduced efficiency remains a limiting factor for large-scale simulations.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Machine Learning in Materials Science · Advanced Electron Microscopy Techniques and Applications · Nanopore and Nanochannel Transport Studies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (36)
Show source-provided references
1. Chen, B. W., Xu, L. & Mavrikakis, M. Computational methods in heterogeneous catalysis. Chem. Rev. 121, 1007–1048 (2020).10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c01060 ↗
2. Grajciar, L. et al. Towards operando computational modeling in heterogeneous catalysis. Chem. Soc. Rev. 47, 8307–8348 (2018).10.1039/C8CS00398J ↗
3. Liu, L. & Corma, A. Metal catalysts for heterogeneous catalysis: from single atoms to nanoclusters and nanoparticles. Chem. Rev. 118, 4981–5079 (2018).10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00776 ↗
4. Dai, Y., Lu, P., Cao, Z., Campbell, C. T. & Xia, Y. The physical chemistry and materials science behind sinter-resistant catalysts. Chem. Soc. Rev. 47, 4314–4331 (2018).10.1039/C7CS00650K ↗
5. Cheng, X. et al. Leveraging machine learning potentials for in-situ searching of active sites in heterogeneous catalysis. Precis. Chem. 2, 570–586 (2024).10.1021/prechem.4c00051 ↗
6. Omranpour, A., Elsner, J., Lausch, K. N. & Behler, J. Machine learning potentials for heterogeneous catalysis. ACS Catal. 15, 1616–1634 (2025).10.1021/acscatal.4c06717 ↗
7. Xia, J., Zhang, Y. & Jiang, B. The evolution of machine learning potentials for molecules, reactions and materials. Chem. Soc. Rev. 54, 4790–4821 (2025).10.1039/D5CS00104H ↗
8. Zhang, D. et al. Dpa-2: a large atomic model as a multi-task learner. npj Comput. Mater. 10, 293 (2024).10.1038/s41524-024-01493-2 ↗
9. Zhang, D. et al. Graph neural network model for the era of large atomistic models. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.01686 (2025).10.48550/arXiv.2506.01686 ↗
10. Batatia, I. et al. A foundation model for atomistic materials chemistry. J. Chem. Phys. 163, 184110 (2025).10.1063/5.0297006 ↗
11. Yang, H. et al. Mattersim: a deep learning atomistic model across elements, temperatures and pressures. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.04967 (2024).10.48550/arXiv.2405.04967 ↗
12. Jain, A. et al. Commentary: The materials project: a materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation. APL Mater. 1, 011002 (2013).10.1063/1.4812323 ↗
13. Tran, R. et al. The open catalyst 2022 (OC22) dataset and challenges for oxide electrocatalysts. ACS Catal. 13, 3066–3084 (2023).10.1021/acscatal.2c05426 ↗
14. Barroso-Luque, L. et al. Open materials 2024 (OMat24) inorganic materials dataset and models (2024).
15. Liu, X. et al. Fine-tuning universal machine-learned interatomic potentials: a tutorial on methods and applications. J. Appl. Phys. 139, 041101 (2025).10.1063/5.0299305 ↗
16. Xu, J. et al. Dynamic metal-support interaction dictates cu nanoparticle sintering on Al2O3 surfaces. ACS Nano 19, 29242–29254 (2025).10.1021/acsnano.5c04622 ↗
17. Xu, J. et al. Research data for “dynamic metal-support interaction dictates cu nanoparticle sintering on Al2O3 surfaces”. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15865800 (2025).10.5281/zenodo.15865800 ↗
18. Ong, Shyue Ping. et al. Python materials genomics (pymatgen): a robust, open-source Python library for materials analysis. Comput. Mater. Sci. 68, 314–319 (2013).10.1016/j.commatsci.2012.10.028 ↗
19. Wellendorff, J. et al. A benchmark database for adsorption bond energies to transition metal surfaces and comparison to selected DFT functionals. Surf. Sci. 640, 36–44 (2015).10.1016/j.susc.2015.03.023 ↗
20. Zhao, K., Auerbach, D. J. & Campbell, C. T. Predicting adhesion energies of metal nanoparticles to support surfaces, which determines metal chemical potential versus particle size and thus catalyst performance. ACS Catal. 14, 12857–12864 (2024).10.1021/acscatal.4c02559 ↗
21. Chanussot, L. et al. Open Catalyst 2020 (OC20) dataset and community challenges. ACS Catal. 11, 6059–6072 (2021).10.1021/acscatal.0c04525 ↗
22. Webber, W., Moffat, A. & Zobel, J. A similarity measure for indefinite rankings. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 28, 1–38 (2010).10.1145/1852102.1852106 ↗
23. Kendall, M. G. The treatment of ties in ranking problems. Biometrika 33, 239–251 (1945).10.1093/biomet/33.3.239 ↗
24. Thompson, A. P. et al. Lammps-a flexible simulation tool for particle-based materials modeling at the atomic, meso, and continuum scales. Comput. Phys. Commun. 271, 108171 (2022).10.1016/j.cpc.2021.108171 ↗
25. Larsen, A. H. et al. The atomic simulation environment-a Python library for working with atoms. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 29, 273002 (2017).10.1088/1361-648X/aa680e ↗
26. Gao, R., Li, Y. & Car, R. Enhanced deep potential model for fast and accurate molecular dynamics: application to the hydrated electron. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 26, 23080–23088 (2024).10.1039/D4CP01483A ↗
27. Zhang, L., Lin, D.-Y., Wang, H., Car, R. & Weinan, E. Active learning of uniformly accurate interatomic potentials for materials simulation. Phys. Rev. Mater. 3, 023804 (2019).10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.3.023804 ↗
28. Bilbrey, J. A., Firoz, J. S., Lee, M.-S. & Choudhury, S. Uncertainty quantification for neural network potential foundation models. npj Comput. Mater. 11, 109 (2025).10.1038/s41524-025-01572-y ↗
29. Liu, K. et al. Heterogeneous ensemble enables a universal uncertainty metric for atomistic foundation models. npj Comput. Mater. 12, 34 (2026).10.1038/s41524-025-01905-x ↗
30. Kresse, G. & Furthmüller, J. Efficiency of ab-initio total energy calculations for metals and semiconductors using a plane-wave basis set. Comput. Mater. Sci. 6, 15–50 (1996).10.1016/0927-0256(96)00008-0 ↗
31. Kresse, G. & Furthmüller, J. Efficient iterative schemes for ab initio total-energy calculations using a plane-wave basis set. Phys. Rev. B 54, 11169 (1996).10.1103/PhysRevB.54.11169 ↗
32. Perdew, J. P., Burke, K. & Ernzerhof, M. Generalized gradient approximation made simple. Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996).10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3865 ↗
33. Xu, J. GDPy: Generating deep potential with Python https://github.com/hsulab/GDPy (2025).
34. Lee, M.-H., Xu, J. & Xie, W. Exploring the stability of single-atom catalysts using the density functional theory-based global optimization method: H2 formation on VOx/γ − Al2O3(100). J. Phys. Chem. C. 126, 6973–6981 (2022).10.1021/acs.jpcc.1c10740 ↗
35. Deaven, D. M. & Ho, K.-M. Molecular geometry optimization with a genetic algorithm. Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 288 (1995).10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.288 ↗
36. Vilhelmsen, L. B. & Hammer, B. Systematic study of Au6 to Au12 gold clusters on MgO (100) F centers using density-functional theory. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 126101 (2012).10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.126101 ↗