MOFSimBench: evaluating universal machine learning interatomic potentials in metal-organic framework molecular modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Universal machine learning interatomic potentials (uMLIPs) have emerged as powerful tools for accelerating atomistic simulations, offering scalable and efficient modeling with accuracy close to quantum calculations. However, their reliability and effectiveness in practical, real-world applications remain an open question. Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) and related nanoporous materials are highly porous crystals with critical relevance in carbon capture, energy storage, and catalysis applications. Modeling nanoporous materials presents distinct challenges for uMLIPs due to their diverse chemistry, structural complexity, including porosity and coordination bonds, and the absence from existing training datasets. Here, we introduce MOFSimBench, a benchmark for evaluating uMLIPs on key materials modeling tasks for nanoporous materials, including structural optimization, molecular dynamics (MD) stability, bulk property prediction, and host-guest interactions. Evaluating 20 models from various architectures, we find that top-performing uMLIPs consistently outperform classical force fields and fine-tuned machine learning potentials across all tasks, demonstrating their readiness for deployment in nanoporous materials modeling. Our analysis highlights that data quality plays a more critical role than model architecture in determining performance across all evaluated uMLIPs. We release our modular and extensible benchmarking framework at https://github.com/AI4ChemS/mofsim-bench, providing an open resource to guide the adoption for nanoporous materials modeling and further development of uMLIPs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".