journal article·2022-05-17Open access

High-throughput predictions of metal–organic framework electronic properties: theoretical challenges, graph neural networks, and data exploration

Andrew S. Rosen, Victor Fung, Patrick Huck, Cody T. O’Donnell, Matthew K. Horton, Donald G. Truhlar, Kristin A. Persson, Justin M. Notestein, Randall Q. Snurr

npj Computational Materials· Volume 8· Issue 1

Abstract

Abstract With the goal of accelerating the design and discovery of metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) for electronic, optoelectronic, and energy storage applications, we present a dataset of predicted electronic structure properties for thousands of MOFs carried out using multiple density functional approximations. Compared to more accurate hybrid functionals, we find that the widely used PBE generalized gradient approximation (GGA) functional severely underpredicts MOF band gaps in a largely systematic manner for semi-conductors and insulators without magnetic character. However, an even larger and less predictable disparity in the band gap prediction is present for MOFs with open-shell 3 d transition metal cations. With regards to partial atomic charges, we find that different density functional approximations predict similar charges overall, although hybrid functionals tend to shift electron density away from the metal centers and onto the ligand environments compared to the GGA point of reference. Much more significant differences in partial atomic charges are observed when comparing different charge partitioning schemes. We conclude by using the dataset of computed MOF properties to train machine-learning models that can rapidly predict MOF band gaps for all four density functional approximations considered in this work, paving the way for future high-throughput screening studies. To encourage exploration and reuse of the theoretical calculations presented in this work, the curated data is made publicly available via an interactive and user-friendly web application on the Materials Project.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Metal-Organic Frameworks: Synthesis and Applications · Machine Learning in Materials Science · X-ray Diffraction in Crystallography

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

References (100+)

Show source-provided references
1. Yaghi, O. M. et al. Reticular synthesis and the design of new materials. Nature 423, 705–714 (2003).10.1038/nature01650 ↗
2. Kalmutzki, M. J., Hanikel, N. & Yaghi, O. M. Secondary building units as the turning point in the development of the reticular chemistry of MOFs. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat9180 (2018).10.1126/sciadv.aat9180 ↗
3. Yaghi, O. M., Kalmutzki, M. J. & Diercks, C. S. Introduction to Reticular Chemistry: Metal-Organic Frameworks and Covalent Organic Frameworks. 1st edn (John Wiley & Sons, 2019).10.1002/9783527821099 ↗
4. Chen, Z. et al. The state of the field: from inception to commercialization of metal–organic frameworks. Faraday Discuss. 225, 9–69 (2021).10.1039/D0FD00103A ↗
5. Stavila, V., Talin, A. A. & Allendorf, M. D. MOF-based electronic and opto-electronic devices. Chem. Soc. Rev. 43, 5994–6010 (2014).10.1039/C4CS00096J ↗
6. Xie, L. S., Skorupskii, G. & Dincă, M. Electrically Conductive Metal–Organic Frameworks. Chem. Rev. 120, 8536–8580 (2020).10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00766 ↗
7. Johnson, E. M., Ilic, S. & Morris, A. J. Design Strategies for Enhanced Conductivity in Metal–Organic Frameworks. ACS Cent. Sci. 7, 445–453 (2021).10.1021/acscentsci.1c00047 ↗
8. Zanca, F. et al. Computational Techniques for Characterisation of Electrically Conductive MOFs: Quantum Calculations and Machine Learning Approaches. J. Mater. Chem. C. 9, 13584–13599 (2021).10.1039/D1TC02543K ↗
9. Zhang, H., Nai, J., Yu, L. & Lou, X. W. D. Metal-organic-framework-based materials as platforms for renewable energy and environmental applications. Joule 1, 77–107 (2017).10.1016/j.joule.2017.08.008 ↗
10. Wu, X.-P., Choudhuri, I. & Truhlar, D. G. Computational studies of photocatalysis with metal–organic frameworks. Energy Environ. Mater. 2, 251–263 (2019).10.1002/eem2.12051 ↗
11. Tajik, S. et al. Recent electrochemical applications of metal–Organic framework-based materials. Cryst. Growth Des. 20, 7034–7064 (2020).10.1021/acs.cgd.0c00601 ↗
12. Moghadam, P. Z. et al. Development of a Cambridge Structural Database Subset: A Collection of Metal–Organic Frameworks for Past, Present, and Future. Chem. Mater. 29, 2618–2625 (2017).10.1021/acs.chemmater.7b00441 ↗
13. Wilmer, C. E. et al. Large-scale screening of hypothetical Metal−Organic frameworks. Nat. Chem. 4, 83–89 (2012).10.1038/nchem.1192 ↗
14. Colón, Y. J. & Snurr, R. Q. High-throughput computational screening of metal−organic frameworks. Chem. Soc. Rev. 43, 5735–5749 (2014).10.1039/C4CS00070F ↗
15. Borboudakis, G. et al. Chemically intuited, large-scale screening of MOFs by machine learning techniques. npj Comput. Mater. 3, 40 (2017).10.1038/s41524-017-0045-8 ↗
16. Jablonka, K. M., Ongari, D., Moosavi, S. M. & Smit, B. Big-Data Science in Porous Materials: Materials Genomics and Machine Learning. Chem. Rev. 120, 8066–8129 (2020).10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00004 ↗
17. Shi, Z. et al. Machine-learning-assisted high-throughput computational screening of high performance metal–Organic frameworks. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. 5, 725–742 (2020).10.1039/D0ME00005A ↗
18. Chong, S., Lee, S., Kim, B. & Kim, J. Applications of machine learning in metal-organic frameworks. Coord. Chem. Rev. 423, 213487 (2020).10.1016/j.ccr.2020.213487 ↗
19. Altintas, C., Altundal, O. F., Keskin, S. & Yildirim, R. Machine Learning Meets with Metal Organic Frameworks for Gas Storage and Separation. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 61, 2131–2146 (2021).10.1021/acs.jcim.1c00191 ↗
20. Mukherjee, K. & Colón, Y. J. Machine learning and descriptor selection for the computational discovery of metal-organic frameworks. Mol. Simul. 47, 857–877 (2021).10.1080/08927022.2021.1916014 ↗
21. Moosavi, S. M., Jablonka, K. M. & Smit, B. The Role of Machine Learning in the Understanding and Design of Materials. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 142, 20273–20287 (2020).10.1021/jacs.0c09105 ↗
22. Rosen, A. S., Notestein, J. M. & Snurr, R. Q. Realizing the Data-Driven, Computational Discovery of Metal-Organic Framework Catalysts. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 35, 100760 (2022).10.1016/j.coche.2021.100760 ↗
23. Rosen, A. S., Notestein, J. M. & Snurr, R. Q. Identifying Promising Metal−Organic Frameworks for Heterogeneous Catalysis via High-Throughput Periodic Density Functional Theory. J. Comput. Chem. 40, 1305–1318 (2019).10.1002/jcc.25787 ↗
24. Rosen, A. S. et al. Machine Learning the Quantum-Chemical Properties of Metal–Organic Frameworks for Accelerated Materials Discovery. Matter 4, 1578–1597 (2021).10.1016/j.matt.2021.02.015 ↗
25. Hill, J., Mannodi-Kanakkithodi, A., Ramprasad, R. & Meredig, B. Materials Data Infrastructure and Materials Informatics, in Computational Materials System Design 2017 193–225 (Springer International Publishing, 2017).10.1007/978-3-319-68280-8_9 ↗
26. Schleder, G. R., Padilha, A. C. M., Acosta, C. M., Costa, M. & Fazzio, A. From DFT to machine learning: recent approaches to materials science–A review. J. Phys. Mater. 2, 32001 (2019).10.1088/2515-7639/ab084b ↗
27. Perdew, J. P., Burke, K. & Ernzerhof, M. Generalized Gradient Approximation Made Simple. Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865–3868 (1996).10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3865 ↗
28. Mori-Sánchez, P., Cohen, A. J. & Yang, W. Many-electron self-interaction error in approximate density functionals. J. Chem. Phys. 125, 201102 (2006).10.1063/1.2403848 ↗
29. Mori-Sánchez, P., Cohen, A. J. & Yang, W. Localization and delocalization errors in density functional theory and implications for band-gap prediction. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 146401 (2008).10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.146401 ↗
30. Borlido, P. et al. Large-scale benchmark of exchange–correlation functionals for the determination of electronic band gaps of solids. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 15, 5069–5079 (2019).10.1021/acs.jctc.9b00322 ↗
31. Filippi, C., Singh, D. J. & Umrigar, C. J. All-electron local-density and generalized-gradient calculations of the structural properties of semiconductors. Phys. Rev. B 50, 14947 (1994).10.1103/PhysRevB.50.14947 ↗
32. Zhao, Y. & Truhlar, D. G. Calculation of semiconductor band gaps with the M06-L density functional. J. Chem. Phys. 130, 74103 (2009).10.1063/1.3076922 ↗
33. Zhuo, Y., Mansouri Tehrani, A. & Brgoch, J. Predicting the band gaps of inorganic solids by machine learning. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 9, 1668–1673 (2018).10.1021/acs.jpclett.8b00124 ↗
34. Kauwe, S. K., Welker, T. & Sparks, T. D. Extracting Knowledge from DFT: experimental Band Gap Predictions Through Ensemble Learning. Integr. Mater. Manuf. Innov. 9, 213–220 (2020).10.1007/s40192-020-00178-0 ↗
35. Kingsbury, R. et al. Performance comparison of r2SCAN and SCAN metaGGA density functionals for solid materials via an automated, high-throughput computational workflow. Phys. Rev. Mater. 6, 013801 (2022).10.26434/chemrxiv-2021-gwm9m-v2 ↗
36. Kim, S. et al. A band-gap database for semiconducting inorganic materials calculated with hybrid functional. Sci. Data 7, 387 (2020).10.1038/s41597-020-00723-8 ↗
37. Borlido, P. et al. Exchange-correlation functionals for band gaps of solids: benchmark, reparametrization and machine learning. npj Comput. Mater. 6, 96 (2020).10.1038/s41524-020-00360-0 ↗
38. Verma, P. & Truhlar, D. G. HLE17: an improved local exchange–correlation functional for computing semiconductor band gaps and molecular excitation energies. J. Phys. Chem. C. 121, 7144–7154 (2017).10.1021/acs.jpcc.7b01066 ↗
39. Heyd, J., Scuseria, G. E. & Ernzerhof, M. Hybrid functionals based on a screened Coulomb potential. J. Chem. Phys. 118, 8207–8215 (2003).10.1063/1.1564060 ↗
40. Krukau, A. V., Vydrov, O. A., Izmaylov, A. F. & Scuseria, G. E. Influence of the exchange screening parameter on the performance of screened hybrid functionals. J. Chem. Phys. 125, 224106 (2006).10.1063/1.2404663 ↗
41. Jain, A. et al. The Materials Project: a materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation. APL Mater. 1, 11002 (2013).10.1063/1.4812323 ↗
42. Janesko, B. G., Henderson, T. M. & Scuseria, G. E. Screened hybrid density functionals for solid-state chemistry and physics. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 11, 443–454 (2009).10.1039/B812838C ↗
43. Choudhuri, I. & Truhlar, D. G. HLE17: an Efficient Way To Predict Band Gaps of Complex Materials. J. Phys. Chem. C. 123, 17416–17424 (2019).10.1021/acs.jpcc.9b04683 ↗
44. Atkins P., Overton T., Rourke J., Weller M., Armstrong F., M. H. Shriver & Atkins’ Inorganic Chemistry. (Oxford University Press, 2009).
45. Liu, F. & Kulik, H. J. Impact of Approximate DFT Density Delocalization Error on Potential Energy Surfaces in Transition Metal Chemistry. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 16, 264–277 (2019).10.1021/acs.jctc.9b00842 ↗
46. Ioannidis, E. I. & Kulik, H. J. Towards quantifying the role of exact exchange in predictions of transition metal complex properties. J. Chem. Phys. 143, 34104 (2015).10.1063/1.4926836 ↗
47. Wasserman, A. et al. The importance of being inconsistent. Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 68, 555–581 (2017).10.1146/annurev-physchem-052516-044957 ↗
48. Janesko, B. G. Replacing hybrid density functional theory: motivation and recent advances. Chem. Soc. Rev. 50, 8470–8495 (2021).10.1039/D0CS01074J ↗
49. Wang, J., Johnson, B. G., Boyd, R. J. & Eriksson, L. A. Electron densities of several small molecules as calculated from density functional theory. J. Phys. Chem. 100, 6317–6324 (1996).10.1021/jp952944u ↗
50. Schwerdtfeger, P., Pernpointner, M. & Laerdahl, J. K. The accuracy of current density functionals for the calculation of electric field gradients: A comparison with ab initio methods for HCl and CuCl. J. Chem. Phys. 111, 3357–3364 (1999).10.1063/1.479620 ↗
51. Schultz, N. E., Gherman, B. F., Cramer, C. J. & Truhlar, D. G. PdnCO (n = 1,2): Accurate ab initio bond energies, geometries, and dipole moments and the applicability of density functional theory for fuel cell modeling. J. Phys. Chem. B 110, 24030–24046 (2006).10.1021/jp064467t ↗
52. Zhao, Q. & Kulik, H. J. Where Does the Density Localize in the Solid State? Divergent Behavior for Hybrids and DFT+U. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 14, 670–683 (2018).10.1021/acs.jctc.7b01061 ↗
53. Grotjahn, R., Lauter, G. J., Haasler, M. & Kaupp, M. Evaluation of Local Hybrid Functionals for Electric Properties: Dipole Moments and Static and Dynamic Polarizabilities. J. Phys. Chem. A 124, 8346–8358 (2020).10.1021/acs.jpca.0c06939 ↗
54. Nazarian, D., Camp, J. S. & Sholl, D. S. A comprehensive set of high-quality point charges for simulations of metal−Organic frameworks. Chem. Mater. 28, 785–793 (2016).10.1021/acs.chemmater.5b03836 ↗
55. Wang, B., Li, S. L. & Truhlar, D. G. Modeling the partial atomic charges in inorganometallic molecules and solids and charge redistribution in lithium-ion cathodes. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 10, 5640–5650 (2014).10.1021/ct500790p ↗
56. Manz, T. A. & Limas, N. G. Introducing DDEC6 atomic population analysis: part 1. Charge partitioning theory and methodology. RSC Adv. 6, 47771–47801 (2016).10.1039/C6RA04656H ↗
57. Limas, N. G. & Manz, T. A. Introducing DDEC6 atomic population analysis: part 2. Computed results for a wide range of periodic and nonperiodic materials. RSC Adv. 6, 45727–45747 (2016).10.1039/C6RA05507A ↗
58. Manz, T. A. Introducing DDEC6 atomic population analysis: part 3. Comprehensive method to compute bond orders. RSC Adv. 7, 45552–45581 (2017).10.1039/C7RA07400J ↗
59. Manz, T. A. & Sholl, D. S. Chemically meaningful atomic charges that reproduce the electrostatic potential in periodic and nonperiodic materials. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 6, 2455–2468 (2010).10.1021/ct100125x ↗
60. Zimmermann, N. E. R. & Jain, A. Local Structure Order Parameters and Site Fingerprints for Quantification of Coordination Environment and Crystal Structure Similarity. RSC Adv. 10, 6063–6081 (2019).10.1039/C9RA07755C ↗
61. Pan, H. et al. Benchmarking Coordination Number Prediction Algorithms on Inorganic Crystal Structures. Inorg. Chem. 60, 1590–1603 (2020).10.1021/acs.inorgchem.0c02996 ↗
62. Gani, T. Z. H. & Kulik, H. J. Where does the density localize? Convergent behavior for global hybrids, range separation, and DFT+U. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 12, 5931–5945 (2016).10.1021/acs.jctc.6b00937 ↗
63. Bader, R. F. W. & Matta, C. F. Atomic charges are measurable quantum expectation values: a rebuttal of criticisms of QTAIM charges. J. Phys. Chem. A 108, 8385–8394 (2004).10.1021/jp0482666 ↗
64. Tang, W., Sanville, E. & Henkelman, G. A grid-based Bader analysis algorithm without lattice bias. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 21, 84204 (2009).10.1088/0953-8984/21/8/084204 ↗
65. Limas, N. G. & Manz, T. A. Introducing DDEC6 atomic population analysis: part 4. Efficient parallel computation of net atomic charges, atomic spin moments, bond orders, and more. RSC Adv. 8, 2678–2707 (2018).10.1039/C7RA11829E ↗
66. Marenich, A. V., Jerome, S. V., Cramer, C. J. & Truhlar, D. G. Charge model 5: an extension of hirshfeld population analysis for the accurate description of molecular interactions in gaseous and condensed phases. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 8, 527–541 (2012).10.1021/ct200866d ↗
67. Choudhuri, I. & Truhlar, D. G. Calculating and Characterizing the Charge Distributions in Solids. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 16, 5884–5892 (2020).10.1021/acs.jctc.0c00440 ↗
68. Manz, T. A. Seven confluence principles: a case study of standardized statistical analysis for 26 methods that assign net atomic charges in molecules. RSC Adv. 10, 44121–44148 (2020).10.1039/D0RA06392D ↗
69. Raza, A., Sturluson, A., Simon, C. & Fern, X. Message Passing Neural Networks for Partial Charge Assignment to Metal-Organic Frameworks. J. Phys. Chem. C. 124, 19070–19082 (2020).10.1021/acs.jpcc.0c04903 ↗
70. Kancharlapalli, S., Gopalan, A., Haranczyk, M. & Snurr, R. Q. Fast and Accurate Machine Learning Strategy for Calculating Partial Atomic Charges in Metal–Organic Frameworks. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 17, 3052–3064 (2021).10.1021/acs.jctc.0c01229 ↗
71. Korolev, V. V. et al. Transferable and extensible machine learning derived atomic charges for modeling hybrid nanoporous materials. Chem. Mater. 32, 7822–7831 (2020).10.1021/acs.chemmater.0c02468 ↗
72. Fung, V., Zhang, J., Juarez, E. & Sumpter, B. Benchmarking graph neural networks for materials chemistry. npj Comput. Mater. 7, 84 (2021).10.1038/s41524-021-00554-0 ↗
73. 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 ↗
74. Pilania, G., Gubernatis, J. E. & Lookman, T. Multi-fidelity machine learning models for accurate bandgap predictions of solids. Comput. Mater. Sci. 129, 156–163 (2017).10.1016/j.commatsci.2016.12.004 ↗
75. Chen, C., Zuo, Y., Ye, W., Li, X. & Ong, S. P. Learning properties of ordered and disordered materials from multi-fidelity data. Nat. Comput. Sci. 1, 46–53 (2021).10.1038/s43588-020-00002-x ↗
76. Ramakrishnan, R., Dral, P. O., Rupp, M. & von Lilienfeld, O. A. Big data meets quantum chemistry approximations: the Δ-machine learning approach. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 11, 2087–2096 (2015).10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00099 ↗
77. Wilkinson, M. D. et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3, 160018 (2016).10.1038/sdata.2016.18 ↗
78. Coudert, F.-X. Materials databases: the need for open, interoperable databases with standardized data and rich Metadata. Adv. Theory Simul. 2, 1900131 (2019).10.1002/adts.201900131 ↗
79. Jain, A. et al. The materials project: accelerating materials design through theory-driven data and tools. In Handbook of Materials Modeling. Methods: Theory and Modeling (eds. Andreoni, W. & Yip, S.) 1751–1784 (Springer Chem, 2020).10.1007/978-3-319-44677-6_60 ↗
80. Huck, P. et al. User applications driven by the community contribution framework MPContribs in the Materials Project. Concurr. Comput. Pract. Exp. 28, 1982–1993 (2016).10.1002/cpe.3698 ↗
81. MPContribs. https://mpcontribs.org.
82. MPContribs-Client. https://pypi.org/project/mpcontribs-client.
83. 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 ↗
84. Bucior, B. J. et al. Identification Schemes for Metal–Organic Frameworks to Enable Rapid Search and Cheminformatics Analysis. Cryst. Growth Des. 19, 6682–6697 (2019).10.1021/acs.cgd.9b01050 ↗
85. Kresse, G. & Furthmüller, J. Efficient iterative schemes for ab initio total-energy calculations using a plane-wave basis set. Phys. Rev. B 54, 11169–11186 (1996).10.1103/PhysRevB.54.11169 ↗
86. Kresse, G. & Joubert, D. From ultrasoft pseudopotentials to the projector augmented-wave method. Phys. Rev. B 59, 1758–1775 (1999).10.1103/PhysRevB.59.1758 ↗
87. Larsen, A. 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 ↗
88. 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 ↗
89. Grimme, S., Ehrlich, S. & Goerigk, L. Effect of the damping function in dispersion corrected density functional theory. J. Comput. Chem. 32, 1456–1465 (2011).10.1002/jcc.21759 ↗
90. Mancuso, J. L., Mroz, A. M., Le, K. N. & Hendon, C. H. Electronic Structure Modeling of Metal–Organic Frameworks. Chem. Rev. 120, 8641–8715 (2020).10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00148 ↗
91. Garza, A. J. & Scuseria, G. E. Predicting band gaps with hybrid density functionals. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 7, 4165–4170 (2016).10.1021/acs.jpclett.6b01807 ↗
92. Moussa, J. E., Schultz, P. A. & Chelikowsky, J. R. Analysis of the Heyd-Scuseria-Ernzerhof density functional parameter space. J. Chem. Phys. 136, 204117 (2012).10.1063/1.4722993 ↗
93. Wang, Y. et al. M06-SX screened-exchange density functional for chemistry and solid-state physics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 117, 2294–2301 (2020).10.1073/pnas.1913699117 ↗
94. Meng, Y. et al. When density functional approximations meet iron oxides. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 12, 5132–5144 (2016).10.1021/acs.jctc.6b00640 ↗
95. Yang, L.-M., Fang, G.-Y., Ma, J., Ganz, E. & Han, S. S. Band gap engineering of paradigm MOF-5. Cryst. Growth Des. 14, 2532–2541 (2014).10.1021/cg500243s ↗
96. Butler, K. T., Hendon, C. H. & Walsh, A. Electronic structure modulation of metal–organic frameworks for hybrid devices. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 6, 22044–22050 (2014).10.1021/am507016r ↗
97. Kulik, H. J. Perspective: treating electron Over-Delocalization with the DFT+U method. J. Chem. Phys. 142, 240901 (2015).10.1063/1.4922693 ↗
98. Mann, G. W., Lee, K., Cococcioni, M., Smit, B. & Neaton, J. B. First-principles Hubbard U approach for small molecule binding in metal-organic frameworks. J. Chem. Phys. 144, 174104 (2016).10.1063/1.4947240 ↗
99. Rosen, A. S., Notestein, J. M. & Snurr, R. Q. Comparing GGA, GGA+U, and Meta-GGA Functionals for Redox-Dependent Binding at Open Metal Sites in Metal−Organic Frameworks. J. Chem. Phys. 152, 224101 (2020).10.1063/5.0010166 ↗
100. Wang, L., Maxisch, T. & Ceder, G. Oxidation energies of transition metal oxides within the GGA+U framework. Phys. Rev. B 73, 195107 (2006).10.1103/PhysRevB.73.195107 ↗