Machine learning hydrogen adsorption on nanoclusters through structural descriptors
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Catalytic activity of the hydrogen evolution reaction on nanoclusters depends on diverse adsorption site structures. Machine learning reduces the cost for modelling those sites with the aid of descriptors. We analysed the performance of state-of-the-art structural descriptors Smooth Overlap of Atomic Positions, Many-Body Tensor Representation and Atom-Centered Symmetry Functions while predicting the hydrogen adsorption (free) energy on the surface of nanoclusters. The 2D-material molybdenum disulphide and the alloy copper–gold functioned as test systems. Potential energy scans of hydrogen on the cluster surfaces were conducted to compare the accuracy of the descriptors in kernel ridge regression. By having recourse to data sets of 91 molybdenum disulphide clusters and 24 copper–gold clusters, we found that the mean absolute error could be reduced by machine learning on different clusters simultaneously rather than separately. The adsorption energy was explained by the local descriptor Smooth Overlap of Atomic Positions, combining it with the global descriptor Many-Body Tensor Representation did not improve the overall accuracy. We concluded that fitting of potential energy surfaces could be reduced significantly by merging data from different nanoclusters.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Machine Learning in Materials Science · Electrocatalysts for Energy Conversion · Catalytic Processes in Materials Science
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (54)
Show source-provided references
1. Wang, D. et al. Shape control of CoO and LiCoO2 nanocrystals. Nano Res. 3, 1–7 (2010).10.1007/s12274-010-1001-9 ↗
2. Liu, Y., Zhao, G., Wang, D. & Li, Y. Heterogeneous catalysis for green chemistry based on nanocrystals. Natl Sci. Rev. 2, 150–166 (2015).10.1093/nsr/nwv014 ↗
3. Yang, F., Deng, D., Pan, X., Fu, Q. & Bao, X. Understanding nano effects in catalysis. Natl Sci. Rev. 2, 183–201 (2015).10.1093/nsr/nwv024 ↗
4. Zhou, K. & Li, Y. Catalysis based on nanocrystals with well-defined facets. Angew. Chem. - Int. Ed. 51, 602–613 (2012).10.1002/anie.201102619 ↗
5. Nan, C. et al. Size and shape control of LiFePO4 nanocrystals for better lithium ion battery cathode materials. Nano Res. 6, 469–477 (2013).10.1007/s12274-013-0324-8 ↗
6. Sayle, D. C., Maicaneanu, S. A. & Watson, G. W. Atomistic models for CeO2(111), (110), and (100) nanoparticles, supported on yttrium-stabilized zirconia. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 124, 11429–11439 (2002).10.1021/ja020657f ↗
7. Fan, Z., Huang, X., Tan, C. & Zhang, H. Thin metal nanostructures: synthesis, properties and applications. Chem. Sci. 6, 95–111 (2015).10.1039/C4SC02571G ↗
8. Valden, M. Onset of catalytic activity of gold clusters on titania with the appearance of nonmetallic properties. Science 281, 1647–1650 (1998).10.1126/science.281.5383.1647 ↗
9. Cuddy, M. J. et al. Fabrication and atomic structure of size-selected, layered MoS2 clusters for catalysis. Nanoscale 6, 12463–12469 (2014).10.1039/C4NR04317K ↗
10. Hu, J. et al. Engineering stepped edge surface structures of MoS2 sheet stacks to accelerate the hydrogen evolution reaction. Energy Environ. Sci. 10, 593–603 (2017).10.1039/C6EE03629E ↗
11. Fu, G. et al. Synthesis and electrocatalytic activity of Au@Pd core-shell nanothorns for the oxygen reduction reaction. Nano Res. 7, 1205–1214 (2014).10.1007/s12274-014-0483-2 ↗
12. Zhang, Z.-c, Xu, B. & Wang, X. Engineering nanointerfaces for nanocatalysis. Chem. Soc. Rev. 43, 7870–7886 (2014).10.1039/C3CS60389J ↗
13. Seh, Z. W. et al. Combining theory and experiment in electrocatalysis: Insights into materials design. Science 355, eaad4998 (2017).10.1126/science.aad4998 ↗
14. Walter, M. G. et al. Solar water splitting cells. Chem. Rev. 110, 6446–6473 (2010).10.1021/cr1002326 ↗
15. Lewis, N. S. & Nocera, D. G. Powering the planet: chemical challenges in solar energy utilization. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 15729–15735 (2006).10.1073/pnas.0603395103 ↗
16. Roger, I., Shipman, M. A. & Symes, M. D. Earth-abundant catalysts for electrochemical and photoelectrochemical water splitting. Nat. Rev. Chem. 1, 0003 (2017).10.1038/s41570-016-0003 ↗
17. European Commission. Report on Critical Raw Materials for the EU, Ad hoc Working Group on defining critical raw materials. Tech. Rep. (2014).
18. Lu, Q. et al. Highly porous non-precious bimetallic electrocatalysts for efficient hydrogen evolution. Nat. Commun. 6, 6567 (2015).10.1038/ncomms7567 ↗
19. 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 ↗
20. Sørensen, S. G., Füchtbauer, H. G., Tuxen, A. K., Walton, A. S. & Lauritsen, J. V. Structure and electronic properties of in situ synthesized single-layer MoS2 on a gold surface. ACS Nano 8, 6788–6796 (2014).10.1021/nn502812n ↗
21. Bruix, A. et al. In situ detection of active edge sites in single-layer MoS2 catalysts. ACS Nano 9, 9322–9330 (2015).10.1021/acsnano.5b03199 ↗
22. Walton, A. S., Lauritsen, J. V., Topsøe, H. & Besenbacher, F. MoS2 nanoparticle morphologies in hydrodesulfurization catalysis studied by scanning tunneling microscopy. J. Catal. 308, 306–318 (2013).10.1016/j.jcat.2013.08.017 ↗
23. Ma, X., Li, Z., Achenie, L. E. K. & Xin, H. Machine-learning-augmented chemisorption model for CO2 electroreduction catalyst screening. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 6, 3528–3533 (2015).10.1021/acs.jpclett.5b01660 ↗
24. Takigawa, I., Shimizu, K.-i, Tsuda, K. & Takakusagi, S. Machine-learning prediction of d-band center for metals and bimetals. RSC Adv. 6, 52587–52595 (2016).10.1039/C6RA04345C ↗
25. Ma, X. Orbitalwise coordination number for predicting adsorption properties of metal nanocatalysts. Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 036101 (2017).10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.036101 ↗
26. Li, Z., Ma, X. & Xin, H. Feature engineering of machine-learning chemisorption models for catalyst design. Catal. Today 280, 232–238 (2017).10.1016/j.cattod.2016.04.013 ↗
27. Ulissi, Z. W., Medford, A. J., Bligaard, T., Nørskov, J. K. & Nørskov, J. K. To address surface reaction network complexity using scaling relations machine learning and DFT calculations. Nat. Commun. 8, 14621 (2017).10.1038/ncomms14621 ↗
28. Li, Z., Wang, S., Chin, W. S., Achenie, L. E. & Xin, H. High-throughput screening of bimetallic catalysts enabled by machine learning. J. Mater. Chem. A 5, 24131–24138 (2017).10.1039/C7TA01812F ↗
29. Parsons, R. The rate of electrolytic hydrogen evolution and the heat of adsorption of hydrogen. Trans. Faraday Soc. 54, 1053 (1958).10.1039/tf9585401053 ↗
30. Nørskov, J. K. et al. Trends in the exchange current for hydrogen evolution. J. Electrochem. Soc. 152, J23 (2005).10.1149/1.1856988 ↗
31. Behler, J. Perspective: machine learning potentials for atomistic simulations. J. Chem. Phys. 145, 170901 (2016).10.1063/1.4966192 ↗
32. Hansen, K. et al. Assessment and validation of machine learning methods for predicting molecular atomization energies. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 9, 3404–3419 (2013).10.1021/ct400195d ↗
33. Huang, B. & von Lilienfeld, O. A. Communication: understanding molecular representations in machine learning: the role of uniqueness and target similarity. J. Chem. Phys. 145, 161102 (2016).10.1063/1.4964627 ↗
34. Bartók, A. P. et al. Machine learning unifies the modeling of materials and molecules. Sci. Adv. 3, e1701816 (2017).10.1126/sciadv.1701816 ↗
35. Hutter, J., Iannuzzi, M., Schiffmann, F. & VandeVondele, J. CP2K: atomistic simulations of condensed matter systems. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.-Comput. Mol. Sci. 4, 15–25 (2014).10.1002/wcms.1159 ↗
36. Perdew, J. P., Burke, K. & Ernzerhof, M. Generalized gradient approximation made simple. Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865–3868 (1996).10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3865 ↗
37. VandeVondele, J. & Hutter, J. Gaussian basis sets for accurate calculations on molecular systems in gas and condensed phases. J. Chem. Phys. 127, 114105 (2007).10.1063/1.2770708 ↗
38. Goedecker, S., Teter, M. & Hutter, J. Separable dual-space Gaussian pseudopotentials. Phys. Rev. B 54, 1703–1710 (1996).10.1103/PhysRevB.54.1703 ↗
39. Krack, M. Pseudopotentials for H to Kr optimized for gradient-corrected exchange-correlation functionals. Theor. Chem. Acc. 114, 145–152 (2005).10.1007/s00214-005-0655-y ↗
40. Hartwigsen, C., Goedecker, S. & Hutter, J. Relativistic separable dual-space Gaussian pseudopotentials from H to Rn. Phys. Rev. B 58, 3641–3662 (1998).10.1103/PhysRevB.58.3641 ↗
41. Grimme, S., Antony, J., Ehrlich, S. & Krieg, H. A consistent and accurate ab initio parametrization of density functional dispersion correction (DFT-D) for the 94 elements H-Pu. J. Chem. Phys. 132, 154104 (2010).10.1063/1.3382344 ↗
42. Grimme, S., Ehrlich, S. & Goerigk, L. Effect of the damping funtion in dispersion corrected density functional theory. J. Comput. Chem. 32, 1456–1465 (2011).10.1002/jcc.21759 ↗
43. Hinnemann, B. et al. Biomimetic hydrogen evolution: MoS2 nanoparticles as catalyst for hydrogen evolution. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 127, 5308–5309 (2005).10.1021/ja0504690 ↗
44. Greeley, J. & Mavrikakis, M. Surface and subsurface hydrogen: adsorption properties on transition metals and near-surface alloys. J. Phys. Chem. B 109, 3460–3471 (2005).10.1021/jp046540q ↗
45. Faber, F., Lindmaa, A., Von Lilienfeld, O. A. & Armiento, R. Crystal structure representations for machine learning models of formation energies. Int. J. Quantum Chem. 115, 1094–1101 (2015).10.1002/qua.24917 ↗
46. Ghiringhelli, L. M., Vybiral, J., Levchenko, S. V., Draxl, C. & Scheffler, M. Big data of materials science: critical role of the descriptor. Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 105503 (2015).10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.105503 ↗
47. De, S., Bartók, A. P., Csányi, G. & Ceriotti, M. Comparing molecules and solids across structural and alchemical space. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 18, 1–18 (2016).10.1039/C6CP00415F ↗
48. Rupp, M. et al. Fast and accurate modeling of molecular atomization energies with machine learning. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 58301 (2012).10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.058301 ↗
49. Behler, J. Atom-centered symmetry functions for constructing high-dimensional neural network potentials. J. Chem. Phys. 134, 074106 (2011).10.1063/1.3553717 ↗
50. Bartók, A. P., Kondor, R. & Csányi, G. On representing chemical environments. Phys. Rev. B - Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 87, 1–19 (2013).
51. Huo, H. & Rupp, M. Unified Representation of Molecules and Crystals for Machine Learning. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.06439.pdf.
52. Faber, F. A. et al. Prediction errors of molecular machine learning models lower than hybrid DFT error. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 13, 5255–5264 (2017).10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00577 ↗
53. Jäger, M. O. J., Morooka, E. V., Canova, F. F., Himanen, L. & Foster, A. S. Machine learning hydrogen adsorption on nanoclusters through structural descriptors. MoS2 dataset. NOMAD Repository (2018).10.1038/s41524-018-0096-5 ↗
54. Jäger, M., Morooka, E. V., Federici Canova, F., Himanen, L. & Foster, A. S. Machine learning hydrogen adsorption on nanoclusters through structural descriptors. AuCu dataset. NOMAD Repository (2018).10.1038/s41524-018-0096-5 ↗