MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414300306 · doi:10.26434/chemrxiv-2025-tn0rh

Rapid prediction of adsorbate probability distributions in metal-organic frameworks using graph neural networks

2025· preprint· en· W4414300306 on OpenAlexafffund
Jake Burner, Olivier Marchand, Rosa Cicciarella, Marco Gibaldi, Tom K. Woo

Bibliographic record

VenueChemRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersTotalNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMaxima and minimaAPDSArtificial neural networkMaximaPorous mediumProbability distributionGraph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) are porous crystalline materials assembled from inorganic nodes and inorganic linkers. These materials have garnered significant interest for gas separation and storage applications, particularly because of their porosity and their tunability due to their massive design space. However, navigating such a massive design space poses significant challenges. Atomistic simulation techniques have been applied to accelerate discovery and design of MOFs for various applications. A key property obtained from these simulations is the adsorbate probability distribution (APD). An APD maps the probability of finding an adsorbate molecule in the pore of a MOF at a given temperature and pressure, whose maxima correspond to free energy minima (i.e., binding sites). While APDs and binding sites are not easily accessible experimentally, their generation via simulation is tractable. However, high-throughput generation of APDs still requires long simulation times to converge. A machine learning (ML) model to predict APDs would enable the use of this property in data-driven pipelines to identify high performing materials or binding sites. To date, nobody has attempted to apply ML to the prediction of APDs or binding sites of MOFs. In this work, we present DeepAPD – a ML model which predicts APDs at a given temperature and pressure. As an initial proof of concept, the model has been trained on simple spherical adsorbates such as CH4 and Xe. DeepAPD was found to generate APDs of MOFs at a speedup factor of >105 in comparison to GCMC. An in-depth discussion of training strategies and dataset size/composition on model performance is presented. It was found that the APDs obtained by ML were sufficiently accurate to get a reliable estimation of binding sites in MOFs, particularly binding sites which have high probability. Finally, the transferability of the ML models was investigated by evaluating the performance of the GNN model on a dataset of experimentally characterized MOFs. We have also implemented the DeepAPD inference code into our binding site identification algorithm to facilitate an end-to-end MOF to binding site prediction. Future work will extend these models to more complex guests such as CO2, N2, and H2O.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemRxivSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207