journal article·2025-07-01Open access

Transition state structure detection with machine learningś

Yitao Si, Yiding Ma, Tao Yu, Yifan Wu, Yingzhe Liu, Weipeng Lai, Zhixiang Zhang, Jinwen Shi, Liejin Guo, Oleg V. Prezhdo, Maochang Liu

npj Computational Materials· Volume 11· Issue 1

Abstract

Transition structure calculations via quantum chemistry methods have become a staple in modern chemical reaction research. Yet, success rates in optimizing transition structures rely heavily on rational initial guesses and expert supervision. We develop a machine learning approach that utilizes a bitmap representation of chemical structures to generate high-quality initial guesses for modeling transition states of chemical reactions. The core of the approach comprises a convolutional neural network methodology with a genetic algorithm. An extensive dataset derived from quantum chemistry computations is built, providing sufficient data on which the model can be trained, validated and tested. By applying the method to typical bi-molecular hydrogen abstraction reactions involving hydrofluorocarbons, hydrofluoroethers, and hydroxyl radicals—reactions critical in atmospheric fluoride degradation and global warming potential evaluation, yet extremely challenging to model, we achieve transition state optimizations with an impressive, verified success rate of 81.8% for hydrofluorocarbons and 80.9% for hydrofluoroethers. The reported work demonstrates the effectiveness of employing visual representation in chemical space exploration tasks and opens new avenues for the transition structure modeling.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Machine Learning in Materials Science · Advanced Chemical Physics Studies · Catalysis and Oxidation Reactions

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (52)

Show source-provided references
1. Zahrt, A. F. et al. Prediction of higher-selectivity catalysts by computer-driven workflow and machine learning. Science 363, eaau5631 (2019).10.1126/science.aau5631 ↗
2. Mamun, O., Winther, K. T., Boes, J. R. & Bligaard, T. A Bayesian framework for adsorption energy prediction on bimetallic alloy catalysts. npj Comput. Mater. 6, 177 (2020).10.1038/s41524-020-00447-8 ↗
3. Xu, P., Ji, X., Li, M. & Lu, W. Small data machine learning in materials science. npj Comput. Mater. 9, 42 (2023).10.1038/s41524-023-01000-z ↗
4. Chen, D., Shang, C. & Liu, Z. P. Machine-learning atomic simulation for heterogeneous catalysis. npj Comput. Mater. 9, 2 (2023).10.1038/s41524-022-00959-5 ↗
5. Jackson, R., Zhang, W. & Pearson, J. TSNet: predicting transition state structures with tensor field networks and transfer learning. Chem. Sci. 12, 10022–10040 (2021).10.1039/D1SC01206A ↗
6. Lemm, D., von Rudorff, G. F. & von Lilienfeld, O. A. Machine learning based energy-free structure predictions of molecules, transition states, and solids. Nat. Commun. 12, 4468 (2021).10.1038/s41467-021-24525-7 ↗
7. Choi, S. Prediction of transition state structures of gas-phase chemical reactions via machine learning. Nat. Commun. 14, 1168 (2023).10.1038/s41467-023-36823-3 ↗
8. Kim, S., Woo, J. & Kim, W. Y. Diffusion-based generative AI for exploring transition states from 2D molecular graphs. Nat. Commun. 15, 341 (2024).10.1038/s41467-023-44629-6 ↗
9. Duan, C. R., Du, Y. Q., Jia, H. J. & Kulik, H. J. Accurate transition state generation with an object-aware equivariant elementary reaction diffusion model. Nat. Comput. Sci. 3, 1045–1055 (2023).10.1038/s43588-023-00563-7 ↗
10. Duan, C. R. et al. React-OT: Optimal transport for generating transition state in chemical reactions. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.13430 (2024).10.48550/arXiv.2404.13430 ↗
11. Schreiner, M., Bhowmik, A., Vegge, T., Busk, J. & Winther, O. Transition1x – a dataset for building generalizable reactive machine learning potentials. (2022).10.1038/s41597-022-01870-w ↗
12. Schreiner, M., Bhowmik, A., Vegge, T., Jørgensen, P. B. & Winther, O. NeuralNEB—neural networks can find reaction paths fast. Mach. Learn.: Sci. Technol. 3, 045022 (2022).
13. Pattanaik, L., Ingraham, J. B., Grambow, C. A. & Green, W. H. Generating transition states of isomerization reactions with deep learning. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 22, 23618–23626 (2020).10.1039/D0CP04670A ↗
14. Grambow, C. A., Pattanaik, L. & Green, W. H. Reactants, products, and transition states of elementary chemical reactions based on quantum chemistry. Sci. Data 7, 137 (2020).10.1038/s41597-020-0460-4 ↗
15. Owens, J. G. Low GWP alternatives to HFCs and PFCs. Proceedings of the 1999 Taipei International Conference on Atmosphere Protection (1999).
16. Owens, J. G. Physical and environmental properties of a next generation extinguishing agent. NIST Special Publication, 201323 (2002).
17. Marchionni, G., Maccone, P. & Pezzin, G. Thermodynamic and other physical properties of several hydrofluoro-compounds. J. Fluor. Chem. 118, 149–155 (2002).10.1016/S0022-1139(02)00226-9 ↗
18. Song, X. et al. Experimental and theoretical study on the OH-reaction kinetics and photochemistry of acetyl fluoride (CH3C(O)F), an atmospheric degradation intermediate of HFC-161 (C2H5F). J. Phys. Chem. A 119, 7753–7765 (2015).10.1021/acs.jpca.5b01069 ↗
19. Urata, S., Takada, A., Uchimaru, T. & Chandra, A. K. Rate constants estimation for the reaction of hydrofluorocarbons and hydrofluoroethers with OH radicals. Chem. Phys. Lett. 368, 215–223 (2003).10.1016/S0009-2614(02)01718-9 ↗
20. Babamov, V. K. & Marcus, R. A. Dynamics of hydrogen atom and proton transfer reactions. Symmetric case. J. Chem. Phys. 74, 1790–1798 (1981).10.1063/1.441267 ↗
21. Cerjan, C. J. & Miller, W. H. On finding transition states. J. Chem. Phys. 75, 2800–2806 (1981).10.1063/1.442352 ↗
22. Forster, P. M. D. F. & Joshi, M. The role of halocarbons in the climate change of the troposphere and stratosphere. Climatic Change 71, 249–266 (2005).10.1007/s10584-005-5955-7 ↗
23. Tsai, W. T. Environmental risk assessment of hydrofluoroethers (HFEs). J. Hazard Mater. 119, 69–78 (2005).10.1016/j.jhazmat.2004.12.018 ↗
24. Heath, E. A. Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer (Kigali Amendment). Int. Leg. Mater. 56, 193–205 (2017).10.1017/ilm.2016.2 ↗
25. Velders, G. J., Andersen, S. O., Daniel, J. S., Fahey, D. W. & McFarland, M. The importance of the Montreal Protocol in protecting climate. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 4814–4819 (2007).10.1073/pnas.0610328104 ↗
26. Hodnebrog, Ø. Global warming potentials and radiative efficiencies of halocarbons and related compounds: A comprehensive review. Rev. Geophys. 51, 300–378 (2013).10.1002/rog.20013 ↗
27. Kaiming, H., Xiangyu, Z., Shaoqing, R. & Jian, S. Deep residual learning for image recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 770-778 (2016).10.1109/CVPR.2016.90 ↗
28. Yin, K. et al. An automated predictor for identifying transition states in solids. npj Comput. Mater. 6, 16 (2020).10.1038/s41524-020-0286-9 ↗
29. Wang, K. & Thrampoulidis, C. Benign overfitting in binary classification of gaussian mixtures. ICASSP 2021 - 2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), Toronto, ON, Canada, 4030-4034 (2021).10.1109/ICASSP39728.2021.9413946 ↗
30. Sanyal, A., Dokania, P. K., Kanade, V. & Torr, P. H. S. How benign is benign overfitting? https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.04028 (2020).
31. Abuhafez, N., Ehlers, A. W., de Bruin, B. & Gramage-Doria, R. Markovnikov-selective cobalt-catalyzed Wacker-type oxidation of styrenes into ketones under ambient conditions enabled by hydrogen bonding. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 63, e202316825 (2024).10.1002/anie.202316825 ↗
32. Becke, A. D. Density-functional exchange-energy approximation with correct asymptotic behavior. Phys. Rev. A Gen. Phys. 38, 3098–3100 (1988).10.1103/PhysRevA.38.3098 ↗
33. Lee, C., Yang, W. & Parr, R. G. Development of the Colle-Salvetti correlation-energy formula into a functional of the electron density. Phys. Rev. B Condens. Matter 37, 785–789 (1988).10.1103/PhysRevB.37.785 ↗
34. Becke, A. D. Density-functional thermochemistry. III. The role of exact exchange. J. Chem. Phys. 98, 5648–5652 (1993).10.1063/1.464913 ↗
35. Stephens, P. J., Devlin, F. J., Chabalowski, C. F. & Frisch, M. J. Ab initio calculation of vibrational absorption and circular dichroism spectra using density functional force fields. J. Phys. Chem. 98, 11623–11627 (2002).10.1021/j100096a001 ↗
36. Weigend, F. & Ahlrichs, R. Balanced basis sets of split valence, triple zeta valence and quadruple zeta valence quality for H to Rn: Design and assessment of accuracy. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 7, 3297–3305 (2005).10.1039/b508541a ↗
37. Weigend, F. Accurate Coulomb-fitting basis sets for H to Rn. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 8, 1057–1065 (2006).10.1039/b515623h ↗
38. Jensen, F. Segmented contracted basis sets optimized for nuclear magnetic shielding. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 11, 132–138 (2015).10.1021/ct5009526 ↗
39. Chai, J. D. & Head-Gordon, M. Systematic optimization of long-range corrected hybrid density functionals. J. Chem. Phys. 128, 084106 (2008).10.1063/1.2834918 ↗
40. Zhao, Y. & Truhlar, D. G. Exploring the limit of accuracy of the global hybrid meta density functional for main-group thermochemistry, kinetics, and noncovalent interactions. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 4, 1849–1868 (2008).10.1021/ct800246v ↗
41. Fink, T., Bruggesser, H. & Reymond, J. L. Virtual exploration of the small-molecule chemical universe below 160 Daltons. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 44, 1504–1508 (2005).10.1002/anie.200462457 ↗
42. Fink, T. & Reymond, J. L. Virtual exploration of the chemical universe up to 11 atoms of C, N, O, F: assembly of 26.4 million structures (110.9 million stereoisomers) and analysis for new ting systems, stereochemistry, physicochemical properties, compound classes, and drug discovery. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47, 342–353 (2007).10.1021/ci600423u ↗
43. O’Boyle, N. M. et al. Open Babel: An open chemical toolbox. J. Cheminform. 3, 33 (2011).10.1186/1758-2946-3-33 ↗
44. Semiempirical extended tight-binding program package. https://Github.Com/Grimme-Lab/Xtb (2023).
45. Bannwarth, C. et al. Extended tight‐binding quantum chemistry methods. WIREs Comput. Mole. Sci. 11, e1493 (2020).10.1002/wcms.1493 ↗
46. Pracht, P., Bohle, F. & Grimme, S. Automated exploration of the low-energy chemical space with fast quantum chemical methods. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 22, 7169–7192 (2020).10.1039/C9CP06869D ↗
47. Taylor, M. G. et al. Architector for high-throughput cross-periodic table 3D complex building. Nat. Commun. 14, 2786 (2023).10.1038/s41467-023-38169-2 ↗
48. Sigmund, L. M. et al. Predicting Lewis acidity: Machine learning the fluoride ion affinity of p-block-atom-based molecules. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 63, e202401084 (2024).10.1002/anie.202401084 ↗
49. Frisch, M. J. et al. Gaussian 16 Rev. B.01, Wallingford, CT (2016).
50. Langer, M. F., Goeβmann, A. & Rupo, M. Representations of molecules and materials for interpolation of quantum-mechanical simulations via machine learning. npj Comput. Mater. 8, 41 (2022).10.1038/s41524-022-00721-x ↗
51. Hunter, J. D. Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment. Comput. Sci. Eng. 9, 90–95 (2007).10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 ↗
52. Bartók, A. P. et al. Machine learning unifies the modeling of materials and molecules. Sci. Adv. 3, e1701816 (2017).10.1126/sciadv.1701816 ↗