journal article·2026-04-03Open access

Angular relational knowledge distillation of machine learning interatomic potentials for scalable catalyst exploration

Hyukjun Lim, Seokhyun Choung, Jinuk Moon, Jeong Woo Han

npj Computational Materials· Volume 12· Issue 1

Abstract

State-of-the-art equivariant Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) achieve DFT-level accuracy for molecular simulations but remain computationally prohibitive for high-throughput screening and long-timescale dynamics. Knowledge distillation (KD) offers a promising solution, yet its application to GNNs remains nascent compared to the mature methodologies developed for language and vision models. The few existing approaches rely on atom-wise feature matching and have struggled to achieve the accuracy necessary for capturing the relational physics underlying the potential energy surface (PES). We introduce Angular Relational Knowledge (ARK) distillation, a framework that distills relational knowledge from pretrained GNNs by modeling each interatomic interaction as a relational vector. Through a contrastive objective, ARK guides compact student models to preserve the geometric structure of the teacher’s learned PES rather than isolated node features. On the OC20, OMat24, and SPICE benchmarks, our ARK-trained student consistently outperforms baselines in energy and force prediction, achieving faithful physical knowledge transfer at a fraction of the computational cost. In a practical high-throughput catalyst screening application, the distilled model achieves an 11.9 × acceleration while preserving chemical coherency. In a large-scale oxygen reduction reaction catalyst screening of over 580,329 structures, ARK reduces the computational cost from 59.4 CPU-years to 11.6 GPU-hours while successfully identifying 30 DFT-confirmed catalyst candidates. Notably, the screening reveals a high prevalence of tellurium-containing materials among the top candidates, corroborating recent experimental reports and demonstrating ARK’s capacity for identifying computationally promising candidates in underexplored spaces.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Machine Learning in Materials Science · Electrocatalysts for Energy Conversion · Advanced Graph Neural Networks

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

References (50)

Show source-provided references
1. Bevacqua, E., Schleussner, C.-F. & Zscheischler, J. A year above 1.5∘ c signals that earth is most probably within the 20-year period that will reach the paris agreement limit. Nat. Clim. Change 15, 262–265 (2025).10.1038/s41558-025-02246-9 ↗
2. Nørskov, J. K., Bligaard, T., Rossmeisl, J. & Christensen, C. H. Towards the computational design of solid catalysts. Nat. Chem. 1, 37–46 (2009).10.1038/nchem.121 ↗
3. Park, S., Choi, D., Lee, D. W., Choi, B. B. & Yoo, S. J. Current progress of electrocatalysts for anion exchange membrane fuel cells. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 40, 1549–1562 (2023).10.1007/s11814-023-1444-9 ↗
4. Curtarolo, S. et al. The high-throughput highway to computational materials design. Nat. Mater. 12, 191–201 (2013).10.1038/nmat3568 ↗
5. Jain, A., Shin, Y. & Persson, K. A. Computational predictions of energy materials using density functional theory. Nat. Rev. Mater. 1, 1–13 (2016).10.1038/natrevmats.2015.4 ↗
6. Medford, A. J. et al. From the sabatier principle to a predictive theory of transition-metal heterogeneous catalysis. J. Catal. 328, 36–42 (2015).10.1016/j.jcat.2014.12.033 ↗
7. Kohn, W. & Sham, L. J. Self-consistent equations including exchange and correlation effects. Phys. Rev. 140, A1133 (1965).10.1103/PhysRev.140.A1133 ↗
8. Chanussot, L. et al. Open catalyst 2020 (oc20) dataset and community challenges. ACS Catal. 11, 6059–6072 (2021).10.1021/acscatal.0c04525 ↗
9. Lan, J. et al. Adsorbml: a leap in efficiency for adsorption energy calculations using generalizable machine learning potentials. npj Comput. Mater. 9, 172 (2023).10.1038/s41524-023-01121-5 ↗
10. Behler, J. & Parrinello, M. Generalized neural-network representation of high-dimensional potential-energy surfaces. Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 146401 (2007).10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.146401 ↗
11. Schütt, K. et al. Schnet: a continuous-filter convolutional neural network for modeling quantum interactions. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30 (NIPS, 2017).
12. Unke, O. T. et al. Machine learning force fields. Chem. Rev. 121, 10142–10186 (2021).10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c01111 ↗
13. Gasteiger, J. et al. GemNet-OC: developing graph neural networks for large and diverse molecular simulation datasets. Trans. Mach. Learn. Res. (2022).
14. Batatia, I., Kovacs, D. P., Simm, G., Ortner, C. & Csányi, G. Mace: Higher order equivariant message passing neural networks for fast and accurate force fields. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 35, 11423–11436 (2022).10.52202/068431-0830 ↗
15. Deng, B. et al. Chgnet as a pretrained universal neural network potential for charge-informed atomistic modelling. Nat. Mach. Intell. 5, 1031–1041 (2023).10.1038/s42256-023-00716-3 ↗
16. Batatia, I. et al. A foundation model for atomistic materials chemistry. J. Chem. Phys. 163, 184110 (2025).
17. Yang, H. et al. Mattersim: a deep learning atomistic model across elements, temperatures and pressures. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.04967 (2024).
18. Edamadaka, S., Yang, S., Li, J. & Gómez-Bombarelli, R. Universally converging representations of matter across scientific foundation models. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.03750 (2025).
19. Brown, T. et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 33, 1877–1901 (2020).
20. Xie, T. & Grossman, J. C. Crystal graph convolutional neural networks for an accurate and interpretable prediction of material properties. Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 145301 (2018).10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.145301 ↗
21. Liao, Y.-L., Wood, B. M., Das, A. & Smidt, T. EquiformerV2: improved equivariant transformer for scaling to higher-degree representations. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2024).
22. Wood, B. M. et al. UMA: a family of universal models for atoms. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS, 2025).
23. Hinton, G., Vinyals, O. & Dean, J. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.02531 (2015).
24. Gou, J., Yu, B., Maybank, S. J. & Tao, D. Knowledge distillation: a survey. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 129, 1789–1819 (2021).10.1007/s11263-021-01453-z ↗
25. Ekström Kelvinius, F., Georgiev, D., Toshev, A. & Gasteiger, J. Accelerating molecular graph neural networks via knowledge distillation. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 36, 25761–25792 (2023).10.52202/075280-1121 ↗
26. Amin, I., Raja, S. & Krishnapriyan, A. S. Towards fast, specialized machine learning force fields: Distilling foundation models via energy hessians. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/forum?id=1durmugh3I (2025).
27. Barroso-Luque, L. et al. Open materials 2024 (omat24) inorganic materials dataset and models. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12771 (2024).
28. Eastman, P. et al. Spice, a dataset of drug-like molecules and peptides for training machine learning potentials. Sci. Data 10, 11 (2023).10.1038/s41597-022-01882-6 ↗
29. Oord, A. v. d., Li, Y. & Vinyals, O. Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.03748 (2018).
30. Greeley, J., Jaramillo, T. F., Bonde, J., Chorkendorff, I. & Nørskov, J. K. Computational high-throughput screening of electrocatalytic materials for hydrogen evolution. Nat. Mater. 5, 909–913 (2006).10.1038/nmat1752 ↗
31. Abed, J. et al. Open catalyst experiments 2024 (ocx24): Bridging experiments and computational models. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.11783 (2024).
32. Broderick, K. et al. Identifying limitations in screening high-throughput photocatalytic bimetallic nanoparticles with machine-learned hydrogen adsorptions. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 320, 121959 (2023).10.1016/j.apcatb.2022.121959 ↗
33. Winther, K. T. et al. Catalysis-hub. org, an open electronic structure database for surface reactions. Sci. Data 6, 75 (2019).10.1038/s41597-019-0081-y ↗
34. Martínez-Alonso, C. et al. Application of machine learning to discover new intermetallic catalysts for the hydrogen evolution and the oxygen reduction reactions. Catal. Sci. Technol. 14, 3784–3799 (2024).10.1039/D4CY00491D ↗
35. Saini, S., Halldin Stenlid, J. & Abild-Pedersen, F. Electronic structure factors and the importance of adsorbate effects in chemisorption on surface alloys. npj Comput. Mater. 8, 163 (2022).10.1038/s41524-022-00846-z ↗
36. Li, J., Stenlid, J. H., Tang, M. T., Peng, H.-J. & Abild-Pedersen, F. Screening binary alloys for electrochemical co 2 reduction towards multi-carbon products. J. Mater. Chem. A 10, 16171–16181 (2022).10.1039/D2TA02749F ↗
37. Yang, G. et al. Effect of porosity gradient in cathode gas diffusion layer on electrochemical performance of proton exchange membrane fuel cells. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 40, 1598–1605 (2023).10.1007/s11814-023-1383-5 ↗
38. Jiang, P. et al. Synthesis of stabilizer-free small pdag alloy nanoparticles supported on carbon using a continuous couette-taylor reactor with enhanced electrochemical activity toward ethanol oxidation reaction. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 40, 2159–2164 (2023).10.1007/s11814-023-1522-z ↗
39. Kulkarni, A., Siahrostami, S., Patel, A. & Nørskov, J. K. Understanding catalytic activity trends in the oxygen reduction reaction. Chem. Rev. 118, 2302–2312 (2018).10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00488 ↗
40. Wan, H., Østergaard, T. M., Arnarson, L. & Rossmeisl, J. Climbing the 3d volcano for the oxygen reduction reaction using porphyrin motifs. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 7, 611–617 (2018).10.1021/acssuschemeng.8b04173 ↗
41. 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 ↗
42. Ong, S. P. 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 ↗
43. Shao, M., Chang, Q., Dodelet, J.-P. & Chenitz, R. Recent advances in electrocatalysts for oxygen reduction reaction. Chem. Rev. 116, 3594–3657 (2016).10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00462 ↗
44. Zhang, Q. & Guan, J. Atomically dispersed catalysts for hydrogen/oxygen evolution reactions and overall water splitting. J. Power Sources 471, 228446 (2020).10.1016/j.jpowsour.2020.228446 ↗
45. Wu, C.-H. et al. High performance of metal-organic framework-derived catalyst supported by tellurium nanowire for oxygen reduction reaction. Renew. Energy 158, 324–331 (2020).10.1016/j.renene.2020.05.114 ↗
46. Hu, C., Chen, J., Wang, Y., Huang, Y. & Wang, S. A telluride-doped porous carbon as highly efficient bifunctional catalyst for rechargeable zn-air batteries. Electrochim. Acta 404, 139606 (2022).10.1016/j.electacta.2021.139606 ↗
47. Alshgari, R. A. et al. Electrochemical performance of nis/mote2 for efficient bifunctional catalyst in water splitting. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 91, 912–923 (2024).10.1016/j.ijhydene.2024.10.186 ↗
48. Lim, H., Kim, S. & Lee, S. Cheapnet: Cross-attention on hierarchical representations for efficient protein-ligand binding affinity prediction. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/forum?id=A1HhtITVEi (2025).
49. Lim, H., Choung, S. & Han, J. W. FORK: First-order relational knowledge distillation for machine learning interatomic potentials. In AI for Accelerated Materials Design Workshop at NeurIPS 2025, https://openreview.net/forum?id=n8CeuVIOeh (2025).10.1038/s41524-026-02062-5 ↗
50. Chen, T., Kornblith, S., Norouzi, M. & Hinton, G. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In International conference on machine learning, 1597–1607 (PmLR, 2020).