Adsorption and Transition State Energy Relationships: From Fundamental Theory to Advanced Applications in Catalysis and Drug Design

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the critical relationship between adsorption energy and transition state energy, a cornerstone concept in chemical kinetics with profound implications for catalyst and drug design. We explore the foundational principles of Transition State Theory and the thermodynamic definition of adsorption energy, establishing how their interplay dictates reaction rates and pathways. The scope extends to a detailed examination of both traditional computational methods, like Nudged Elastic Band (NEB) and the Dimer method, and cutting-edge machine learning approaches for predicting transition states and adsorption energies. We address common challenges in computational workflows, including data scarcity and convergence issues, and present benchmarking strategies for validating results against experimental data. Aimed at researchers and professionals in catalysis and pharmaceutical development, this review synthesizes theoretical insights, methodological advances, and practical troubleshooting to guide the rational design of molecules and materials with tailored reactivity.

Core Concepts: Unraveling the Energetic Link Between Adsorption and the Transition State

Transition State Theory (TST), also referred to as activated-complex theory or absolute-rate theory, provides a fundamental framework for understanding and calculating the rates of elementary chemical reactions [1]. Developed simultaneously in 1935 by Henry Eyring at Princeton University and by Meredith Gwynne Evans and Michael Polanyi at the University of Manchester, TST represents a significant advancement over the earlier empirical Arrhenius rate law by incorporating mechanistic considerations of how reactions occur at the molecular level [1]. The theory has proven particularly valuable in qualitative understanding of chemical reactions and in calculating thermodynamic activation parameters (ΔG‡, ΔH‡, ΔS‡) when experimental rate constants are available [1].

In the context of adsorption energy and transition state energy relationships, TST provides the critical link between the thermodynamic strength of surface adsorption and the kinetic rates of catalytic transformations. This connection is essential for research aimed at designing improved catalysts and optimizing reaction conditions in heterogeneous catalysis and drug development [2] [3]. For researchers investigating molecular interactions at surfaces, TST offers both a conceptual model and quantitative tools for relating the energy landscape of reactions to their observable rates.

Theoretical Foundations of TST

Core Principles and Basic Equations

Transition State Theory is built upon several key postulates about the behavior of reacting systems. The theory assumes that during the conversion of reactants to products, molecular systems must pass through a special high-energy configuration known as the transition state or activated complex [1] [2]. This transition state represents the point of highest potential energy along the minimum energy pathway connecting reactants and products. A second fundamental assumption is that the activated complexes are in a special quasi-equilibrium with the reactant molecules, distinct from the overall equilibrium between reactants and products [1]. Finally, TST assumes that the rate of the reaction is determined by the concentration of these transition state complexes multiplied by the frequency at which they convert to products [1].

The mathematical formulation of TST leads to the Eyring equation, which provides a theoretical expression for the reaction rate constant [2]:

Where:

• k is the reaction rate constant
• k_B is Boltzmann's constant
• T is absolute temperature
• h is Planck's constant
• Q‡ is the partition function of the transition state
• Q_R is the partition function of the reactants
• ΔG‡ is the Gibbs free energy of activation
• R is the universal gas constant

The term k_BT/h represents the universal frequency of barrier crossing attempts, typically on the order of 10^12-10^13 s⁻¹ at room temperature [2]. The partition function ratio Q‡/Q_R relates to the probability of forming the transition state, while the exponential term describes the energy requirement for reaching the transition state.

Comparison with Arrhenius Theory

While the empirical Arrhenius equation (k = A × exp(-E_a/RT)) predates TST and was derived from experimental observations, the Eyring equation provides a theoretical foundation for both the pre-exponential factor A and the activation energy E_a [1] [2]. The Arrhenius activation energy E_a relates approximately to the enthalpy of activation (ΔH‡) in TST, while the pre-exponential factor A encompasses both the frequency factor k_BT/h and the entropy of activation (ΔS‡) through the relationship A ∝ (k_BT/h) × exp(ΔS‡/R) [2].

Table 1: Comparison of Arrhenius and Transition State Theory Parameters

Parameter	Arrhenius Theory	Transition State Theory
Rate Constant	k = A × exp(-E_a/RT)	k = (k_BT/h) × (Q‡/Q_R) × exp(-ΔG‡/RT)
Activation Energy	Empirical parameter E_a	Related to enthalpy of activation ΔH‡
Pre-exponential Factor	Empirical parameter A	Related to entropy of activation (k_BT/h) × exp(ΔS‡/R)
Theoretical Basis	Empirical	Derived from statistical mechanics

Potential Energy Surfaces and the Reaction Coordinate

The conceptual foundation of TST relies on the existence of a potential energy surface (PES) that describes how the energy of a molecular system changes with nuclear configuration [1]. The progress of a reaction can be visualized as a point moving across this multidimensional surface from the reactant valley to the product valley, necessarily passing through a saddle point known as the transition state [1]. The reaction coordinate represents the lowest-energy pathway connecting reactants and products through this transition state [2].

In 1931, Henry Eyring and Michael Polanyi constructed the first potential-energy surface for the reaction H + H₂ → H₂ + H, based on quantum-mechanical principles and experimental data [1]. This work established the importance of visualizing chemical reactions as motions on potential energy surfaces, with the transition state located at the saddle point or "col" between reactant and product basins [1].

Advanced Theoretical Developments

Limitations of Conventional TST and Modern Extensions

While conventional TST provides a powerful framework, it relies on several simplifying assumptions that limit its accuracy for certain systems. The theory assumes no recrossing of the transition state dividing surface—meaning that any system that reaches the transition state proceeds to products without turning back [2]. It also treats motion along the reaction coordinate classically, neglecting quantum mechanical effects such as tunneling through the energy barrier rather than passing over it [2]. Additionally, the quasi-equilibrium assumption between reactants and the transition state may break down for very fast reactions [2].

To address these limitations, several advanced theoretical extensions have been developed:

• Variational Transition State Theory (VTST): This approach variationally optimizes the location of the dividing surface between reactants and products to minimize the flux of recrossing trajectories, thereby improving rate constant predictions [2] [4].

• Variable Reaction Coordinate TST (VRC-TST): Specifically designed for barrierless reactions (such as radical recombinations), VRC-TST employs variable, multifaceted dividing surfaces to properly describe reactions without a well-defined saddle point [4].

• Quantum Transition State Theory: Incorporates quantum mechanical effects such as tunneling, particularly important for reactions involving hydrogen transfer at low temperatures [2].

• Dynamical Corrections to TST: Uses molecular dynamics simulations to calculate transmission coefficients that account for dynamical effects not captured by static TST [2].

NN-VRCTST: Machine Learning Enhanced TST

Recent advances have integrated artificial intelligence with TST to overcome computational bottlenecks. The NN-VRCTST approach fits the potential energy surface with physics-inspired artificial neural network (ANN) models to be used as surrogate potentials in VRC-TST simulations [4]. This method has demonstrated accuracy within 20% of traditional VRC-TST while reducing the number of required single-point energy evaluations by at least a factor of four [4]. The decoupling of ANN training from VRC-TST calculations enables optimization of computational resources and quality inspection of the data points used in the simulations [4].

Table 2: Advanced Transition State Theory Methodologies

Methodology	Key Features	Applications	Advantages
Variational TST (VTST)	Variational optimization of dividing surface	Reactions with significant recrossing	Improved accuracy for recrossing-dominated reactions
Variable Reaction Coordinate TST (VRC-TST)	Variable dividing surfaces anchored on reactive centers	Barrierless reactions, radical recombinations	Accurate treatment of reactions without saddle points
Quantum TST	Incorporates quantum tunneling effects	Reactions involving H-atom transfer, low temperatures	Accounts for quantum mechanical effects
NN-VRCTST	Neural network potentials for PES	Complex barrierless reactions	Reduces computational cost by 4x while maintaining accuracy

Experimental and Computational Methodologies

Determining TST Rate Constants Using Quantum Chemistry

The application of Transition State Theory to predict reaction rates typically follows a well-defined computational workflow that combines quantum chemistry calculations with kinetic theory. A representative methodology for determining TST rate constants involves several key steps [5]:

• System Selection and Reaction Mechanism Definition: Identify the elementary reaction steps and define the stoichiometry. For example, in studying mercury oxidation in combustion systems, researchers defined an 8-step mechanism involving reactions with Cl, Clâ‚‚, HCl, and HOCl species [5].

• Quantum Chemistry Calculations: Perform high-level quantum chemistry calculations using software such as Gaussian 03W to determine molecular structures, vibrational frequencies, and energies of reactants, products, and transition states [5]. These calculations typically employ:

  • Electron correlation methods (e.g., MP2, CCSD(T))
  • Appropriate basis sets with polarization and diffuse functions
  • Effective core potentials (ECP) for heavy elements

• Transition State Validation: Validate the identified transition state by confirming that it has exactly one imaginary vibrational frequency (negative eigenvalue in the Hessian matrix) corresponding to motion along the reaction coordinate [5].

• Rate Constant Calculation: Apply the appropriate TST formulation based on reaction type. For bimolecular reactions, conventional TST (CTST) takes the form [5]:

  Where L is a statistical factor, Q_TS, Q_A, Q_B are partition functions for the transition state and reactants, and E_0 is the barrier height.

• RRKM Theory for Unimolecular Reactions: For unimolecular decomposition reactions, employ Rice-Ramsperger-Kassel-Marcus (RRKM) theory with variational transition state theory to locate the transition state along the reaction coordinate, particularly for barrierless reactions [5].

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools and Methods for TST Research

Tool/Method	Function	Application in TST Research
Quantum Chemistry Software (Gaussian, ORCA, Q-Chem)	Performs electronic structure calculations	Determines molecular geometries, energies, and vibrational frequencies of reactants and transition states [5]
Potential Energy Surface Scanners	Maps multidimensional energy landscapes	Locates transition states and minimum energy paths for reactions [1] [4]
Partition Function Calculators	Computes statistical mechanical properties	Evaluates translational, rotational, and vibrational partition functions for TST rate expressions [5]
Variational TST Implementations (VaReCoF, PolyRate)	Performs advanced TST calculations	Handles barrierless reactions and optimizes dividing surfaces [4]
Machine Learning Potentials (NN-VRCTST)	Accelerates PES evaluation	Reduces computational cost of high-level TST calculations [4]
High-Performance Computing Clusters	Provides computational resources	Enables demanding quantum chemistry and dynamics simulations [4]

Applications in Adsorption Energy and Catalysis Research

Connecting Adsorption Energies to Transition State Energies

In heterogeneous catalysis, Transition State Theory provides the critical framework linking adsorption energies to reaction rates—a relationship central to catalyst design and optimization. Density functional theory (DFT) predictions of binding energies and reaction barriers provide invaluable data for analyzing chemical transformations in heterogeneous catalysis [3]. The accuracy of these predictions directly impacts the reliability of computed reaction rates through TST.

The challenge in this field lies in achieving a balanced description of both strong covalent interactions and weaker non-covalent (dispersion) interactions on transition metal surfaces [3]. Different exchange-correlation functionals (such as BEEF-vdW, RPBE, MS2, SCAN) show varying performance for different types of adsorption, with no single functional currently providing optimal accuracy for all systems [3]. For instance, in methanol decomposition on Pd(111) and Ni(111), different functionals (optB86b-vdW, PBE+D3, PBE) show dramatically varying accuracy depending on the specific reaction step, highlighting the complexity of achieving balanced accuracy [3].

Recent approaches combining periodic DFT calculations with higher-level quantum chemical corrections on cluster models have shown promise in improving the accuracy of adsorption energies and activation barriers [3]. For example, applying corrections from higher-level calculations to small metal clusters can improve periodic band structure adsorption energies and barriers, with demonstrated mean absolute errors of 2.2 kcal mol⁻¹ for covalent adsorption, 2.7 kcal mol⁻¹ for non-covalent adsorption, and 1.1 kcal mol⁻¹ for activation barriers [3].

Case Study: Mercury Oxidation in Combustion Systems

A practical application of TST in environmental chemistry involves predicting the rate constants for mercury oxidation in combustion systems [5]. Researchers applied quantum chemistry and TST to determine rate constants for eight Hg-Cl reaction steps in the temperature range of 298-2000 K [5]. The methodology involved:

• Using high-level quantum chemistry calculations with effective core potential basis sets for Hg and all-electron basis sets with polarization and diffuse functions for Cl/O/H species [5].
• Validating computational methods by comparing calculated molecular structures, vibrational frequencies, and reaction enthalpies with reliable reference data [5].
• Applying conventional TST for bimolecular reactions and RRKM theory for atom-atom recombination reactions [5].
• Determining that Hg/HgCl recombination reactions with Cl were the fastest mercury-chlorine reactions, while Hg/HgCl reactions with HCl were the slowest, providing mechanistic insight into mercury oxidation pathways [5].

This application demonstrates how TST enables predictions of environmentally important reaction rates that would be challenging to measure experimentally across all relevant conditions.

Future Perspectives and Research Directions

The continued evolution of Transition State Theory is marked by several promising research directions. The integration of machine learning approaches, as demonstrated by NN-VRCTST, is likely to expand to more complex reaction systems, potentially enabling accurate rate predictions for reactions involving large molecular systems or complex interfaces [4]. The development of multiscale modeling strategies that combine high-level electronic structure methods, efficient TST implementations, and microkinetic modeling will further enhance our ability to predict reaction rates across diverse chemical environments [5] [3].

For researchers focused on adsorption energy and transition state energy relationships, ongoing efforts to improve the accuracy of density functionals for both strong covalent and weak non-covalent interactions will be crucial [3]. The combination of periodic DFT with wavefunction-based corrections for cluster models represents a promising path toward achieving chemical accuracy (errors < 1 kcal/mol) in adsorption and activation energies [3].

As these methodological advances continue, Transition State Theory will maintain its central role in connecting molecular-level interactions to macroscopic reaction rates, enabling more rational design of catalysts and optimization of reaction conditions in fields ranging from industrial catalysis to pharmaceutical development.

Adsorption energy is a fundamental thermodynamic descriptor that quantifies the interaction strength between an adsorbate (a molecule, atom, or ion) and a surface. This parameter is critical for understanding and predicting the behavior of materials across a vast range of technologies, including catalysis, gas separation, sensors, and drug development [6] [7]. The significance of adsorption energy extends beyond equilibrium properties to the kinetics of surface processes, as it shares an intimate relationship with the energy of transition states in catalytic reactions [1] [8]. A precise definition and reliable methods for determining adsorption energy are therefore foundational to research aimed at designing new functional materials.

This article provides an in-depth technical guide to the conceptual definition, computational and experimental determination, and thermodynamic significance of adsorption energy, with particular emphasis on its role in transition state theory and reaction kinetics.

Fundamental Definition and Thermodynamic Formulation

Conceptual Definition

Adsorption energy (ΔE_ads) is fundamentally defined as the energy change associated with the process of a molecule (the adsorbate) binding to a surface (the adsorbent). A negative adsorption energy indicates an exothermic, favorable process. The strength of this interaction dictates key properties such as surface coverage, adsorbate stability, and the facility of subsequent surface reactions [6].

Quantitative Formulation

The standard quantum-mechanical expression for calculating adsorption energy is given by:

ΔE_ads = E_sys - E_slab - E_gas [6]

Where:

• ΔE_ads is the adsorption energy.
• E_sys is the total energy of the combined adsorbate-surface system in its relaxed, minimum-energy configuration.
• E_slab is the energy of the clean, relaxed surface (slab) without the adsorbate.
• E_gas is the energy of the isolated, gas-phase adsorbate molecule.

Table 1: Components of the Adsorption Energy Equation.

Symbol	Quantity	Description
Esys	System Energy	Total energy of the relaxed adsorbate-surface complex
Eslab	Slab Energy	Energy of the pristine, relaxed surface structure
Egas	Gas Phase Energy	Energy of the adsorbate molecule in its isolated state

This deceptively simple formula necessitates accurate calculations of its constituent terms. The critical step is identifying the global minimum-energy configuration for the adsorbate-surface system (E_sys), which involves exploring numerous potential binding sites and molecular orientations [6]. Furthermore, the reference states must be carefully considered; for instance, the energy of the clean surface (E_slab) should be structurally consistent with the surface in the adsorbed state to avoid artifacts [9].

Computational Determination of Adsorption Energy

Computational methods, particularly first-principles calculations based on Density Functional Theory (DFT), are the most common tools for predicting adsorption energies. These methods enable researchers to model interactions at the atomic scale and screen large numbers of materials in silico [6] [7].

Workflow for Accurate Computational Determination

A robust computational protocol for determining adsorption energy involves several key stages, as visualized below.

Diagram 1: Workflow for computational determination of adsorption energy. ML: Machine Learning.

Step 1: Surface and Adsorbate Preparation. The catalyst surface is modeled as a periodic slab, and its geometry is fully relaxed to a minimum energy state to establish the reference E_slab. The gas-phase adsorbate is also optimized to obtain E_gas [6].

Step 2: Configuration Sampling. Multiple initial adsorbate-surface configurations are generated. This can be based on heuristic methods (e.g., high-symmetry sites) or stochastic sampling to ensure comprehensive exploration of the potential energy surface (PES) [10] [6]. For complex or flexible molecules, this step is critical.

Step 3: Structure Relaxation. Each initial configuration is relaxed to its nearest local energy minimum. While DFT is the standard for final accuracy, the process is computationally expensive. Machine learning potentials (MLPs) are increasingly used for pre-screening, performing relaxations ~2000 times faster to identify promising candidate structures for subsequent DFT refinement [6].

Step 4: Energy Calculation and Validation. After identifying the global minimum configuration (lowest E_sys), the adsorption energy is calculated. The final structure must be validated to ensure the adsorbate is not desorbed or dissociated, which would render the result invalid [6].

Advanced and High-Throughput Approaches

The computational field is rapidly evolving toward high-throughput screening. The Open DAC 2025 (ODAC25) dataset exemplifies this, comprising nearly 70 million DFT calculations for gas adsorption in metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) [9]. Tools like Xsorb automate the sampling and optimization process for finding the most stable adsorption configuration [10]. Furthermore, hybrid algorithms like AdsorbML leverage machine learning to achieve a spectrum of accuracy-efficiency trade-offs, dramatically accelerating the discovery of low-energy adsorbate configurations [6].

Experimental Methodologies for Measuring Adsorption Energy

Experimental validation is essential to complement computational predictions. Several techniques can be used to probe adsorption energies, each with its own methodology and scope.

Table 2: Experimental Techniques for Adsorption Energy Determination.

Technique	Core Principle	Measurable Parameters	Key Considerations
Reversed-Flow Gas Chromatography (RF-GC) [11]	Measures perturbations in analyte retention caused by adsorption/desorption on a solid stationary phase.	Adsorption isotherms, probability density functions for adsorption energies, lateral interaction energies.	Suitable for characterizing heterogeneous solid surfaces under conditions near atmospheric.
Scanning Kelvin Probe (SKP) [12]	Measures contact potential difference, related to work function changes induced by adsorbate bonding.	Relative changes in adsorption energy trends, metal-hydrogen bond energy.	Operates at solid/liquid interfaces; provides indirect energy estimates based on electronic structure changes.
Temperature-Programmed Desorption (TPD)	Monitors desorption rate of an adsorbate as temperature is linearly increased.	Desorption activation energy, which relates to the adsorption strength.	A well-established technique not featured in the search results but widely used in the field.

Detailed Protocol: Reversed-Flow Gas Chromatography

RF-GC is a powerful method for measuring adsorption energies on heterogeneous surfaces, as it can determine energy distributions and lateral molecular interactions [11].

1. Apparatus and Materials:

• Chromatograph: Equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID).
• Sampling Column: Packed with the solid adsorbent of interest (e.g., calcium oxide, 10-30 mesh).
• Carrier Gas: Ultra-high-purity nitrogen.
• Analytes: Pure samples of the adsorbate molecules (e.g., hydrocarbons C2-C4).

2. Experimental Procedure:

• The sampling column containing the solid adsorbent is placed in the chromatograph oven.
• A small amount of the adsorbate vapor is injected into the carrier gas stream.
• The flow direction is periodically reversed. The resulting chromatographic peaks ("sample peaks") are recorded as a function of time.
• The height (H) of these sample peaks and their corresponding time (t) are the primary raw data [11].

3. Data Analysis and Calculations:

• The peak heights and times are fitted to an equation of the form: H^1/M = Σ A_i exp(B_it), where M is the detector response factor, and A_i and B_i are fitting coefficients [11].
• From the pre-exponential factors and exponential coefficients, physicochemical quantities are extracted using specialized software (e.g., a "LAT PC program"). These include the adsorption energy (ε), local adsorption isotherm, local monolayer capacity, and a parameter (β) characterizing lateral interactions between adsorbed molecules [11].

The Thermodynamic Link to Transition State Theory

The thermodynamic significance of adsorption energy is profoundly linked to the kinetics of surface reactions through Transition State Theory (TST). TST explains reaction rates by positing that reactants form an activated transition state complex, which is in quasi-equilibrium with the reactants [1].

The Role of Adsorption in Catalytic Cycles

In a catalytic reaction, the adsorption of reactants is the first critical step. The adsorption energy of a reaction intermediate is a powerful descriptor for catalytic activity, embodying the Sabatier principle: the optimal catalyst binds reactants neither too strongly nor too weakly [12]. For instance, in the hydrogen evolution reaction (HER), the adsorption energy of the hydrogen intermediate (M-H) directly correlates with the reaction rate [12].

Adsorption Energy and Activation Barriers

The energy required to form the transition state is intrinsically linked to the stability of the adsorbed initial state. This connection is formalized in the Eyring equation, derived from TST, which expresses the reaction rate constant as: k = (k_BT / h) exp(-ΔG‡ / RT)

Here, ΔG‡ is the standard Gibbs energy of activation, which is the difference in free energy between the transition state and the reactants [1]. The adsorption energy directly influences the initial state energy, thereby affecting ΔG‡. This relationship is leveraged in studies of surface reactions, such as the adsorption and desorption of acetone on TiO₂ clusters, where the Gibbs free energy of adsorption is a key input for applying TST to calculate desorption rates and sensor recovery times [8].

The following diagram illustrates the energetic pathway of a surface reaction, highlighting the central role of adsorption energy.

Diagram 2: Energetic pathway of a catalytic surface reaction, showing the relationship between adsorption energy (ΔE_ads) and the activation barrier (ΔG‡). The diagram shows how the adsorption energy of the initial state sets the baseline for the activation barrier of the subsequent surface reaction.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

This section details key computational and experimental resources essential for research in adsorption science.

Table 3: Key Resources for Adsorption Energy Research.

Category / Name	Function / Description	Application Context
Computational Software & Databases
Density Functional Theory (DFT) [6] [7]	First-principles method for computing electronic structure, energies, and forces of atomistic systems.	Gold standard for calculating accurate adsorption energies; used in codes like Quantum ESPRESSO [10].
Machine Learning Potentials (MLPs) [9] [6]	ML models (e.g., EquiformerV2) trained on DFT data to predict energies/forces at a fraction of the cost.	High-throughput pre-screening of adsorption configurations; implemented in tools like AdsorbML [6].
iRASPA [13]	GPU-accelerated visualization software for materials science.	Visualizing crystal structures (MOFs, zeolites), adsorption sites, and energy surfaces.
Xsorb [10]	Python-based program that automates sampling of adsorption configurations on crystal surfaces.	Identifying the most stable adsorption geometry and energy for molecule-surface systems.
Experimental Materials & Tools
Metal-Organic Frameworks (MOFs) [9]	Highly tunable, porous crystalline materials with vast surface areas.	Promising sorbents for direct air capture (DAC) and gas separation; subject of high-throughput screening.
Transition Metal Dichalcogenides (TMDs) [7]	Two-dimensional (2D) materials like MoSâ‚‚ and WSeâ‚‚.	Model systems for studying adsorption and defect chemistry in memristors and catalysis.
Reversed-Flow GC Setup [11]	Specialized gas chromatograph with flow reversal capabilities and FID detection.	Experimental determination of adsorption energy distributions and isotherms on solid powders.
Glucosamine Cholesterol	Glucosamine Cholesterol, MF:C37H61NO8, MW:647.9 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Pomalidomide-amido-C5-PEG2-C6-chlorine	Pomalidomide-amido-C5-PEG2-C6-chlorine, MF:C29H40ClN3O8, MW:594.1 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Adsorption energy, rigorously defined by the energy difference ΔE_ads = E_sys - E_slab - E_gas, is a cornerstone property for the design and understanding of functional materials. Its accurate determination, whether through sophisticated computational workflows combining DFT and machine learning or through meticulous experimental techniques like reversed-flow gas chromatography, remains an active and evolving field of research. The thermodynamic significance of adsorption energy is profoundly amplified by its direct connection to the activation energies that govern surface reaction kinetics, as described by Transition State Theory. A deep understanding of this relationship, encapsulated by the Sabatier principle, enables the rational design of catalysts, sorbents, and sensors, guiding researchers in selecting and optimizing materials for enhanced performance across chemical engineering, materials science, and drug development.

In computational catalysis and materials science, the concept of the energy landscape provides a fundamental framework for understanding and predicting the rates and selectivity of surface reactions. At the heart of this landscape lies a critical relationship: the strength with which adsorbates bind to a catalyst surface directly influences the geometry and energy of transition states—the highest-energy configurations along reaction pathways. This intimate connection between adsorption strength and transition state geometry serves as a cornerstone for rational catalyst design, enabling researchers to predict catalytic activity without exhaustive experimental screening.

The theoretical foundation for this relationship rests on unifying principles such as the Brønsted-Evans-Polanyi (BEP) relations and the d-band model, which correlate adsorption energies with activation barriers across diverse catalytic systems [14] [15]. As this whitepaper will demonstrate, adsorption energy functions as a powerful descriptor that efficiently correlates with catalytic activity and selectivity by dictating how reaction intermediates and transition states interact with catalyst surfaces [16] [14]. Through detailed case studies and computational methodologies, we explore how atomic-scale surface chemistry governs macroscopic kinetic observables across heterogeneous catalysis, energy storage, and electronic device applications.

Theoretical Foundations and Key Principles

Electronic Structure Descriptors of Adsorption Strength

The electronic structure of a catalyst surface fundamentally determines its interaction with adsorbates. Among various theoretical frameworks, the d-band model has emerged as a particularly effective descriptor for predicting adsorption energies and, by extension, transition state geometries. This model quantifies adsorption behavior by treating the d-band center (the average energy of the d-band states) as a key parameter [14]. When the d-band center shifts closer to the Fermi level, the anti-bonding states formed between the surface and adsorbate become partially filled, resulting in stronger adsorption (more negative adsorption energy) [14]. This electronic principle provides a powerful predictive capability: a decrease in the number of valence electrons correlates with a positive shift in the d-band structure, strengthening adsorption interactions and subsequently influencing transition state configurations.

Complementing the d-band model, the Friedel model offers additional insights through the parabolic relationship between sublimation energy and the number of valence electrons [14]. These electronic descriptors enable researchers to establish structure-property-performance relationships that guide catalyst development without requiring exhaustive computational screening of every possible material composition.

Correlation Between Adsorption Energy and Transition State Energy

The intrinsic link between adsorption energy and transition state energy finds its theoretical basis in linear free energy relationships, most notably the Brønsted-Evans-Polanyi (BEP) relations [15]. These principles establish that the transition state energy of an elementary reaction step correlates linearly with the adsorption energy of its reaction intermediates. This relationship emerges because transition states often resemble reaction products or intermediates in their bonding configuration with the catalyst surface.

The practical implication of this correlation is profound: adsorption energies can serve as effective descriptors for predicting catalytic activity across diverse reactions [14]. According to the Sabatier principle, optimal catalysts exhibit moderate adsorption energies—strong enough to activate reactants but weak enough to allow product desorption [14]. This principle generates characteristic "volcano plots" where catalytic activity reaches a maximum at intermediate adsorption strengths, highlighting how adsorption energy directly influences the overall reaction kinetics through its effect on transition state energies.

Quantitative Relationships: Experimental and Computational Evidence

Adsorption Energy Trends Across Material Systems

Table 1: Measured Adsorption Energies of Selected Adatom-TMD Systems

Adsorbate	TMD Substrate	Adsorption Energy (eV)	Charge Transfer (	e	)	Reference
Gold (Au)	MoSâ‚‚	-2.64	~0.5	[7]
Silver (Ag)	MoSâ‚‚	-2.19	~0.3	[7]
Copper (Cu)	MoSâ‚‚	-2.96	~0.6	[7]
Scandium (Sc)	MoSâ‚‚	-5.57	>1.0	[7]
Yttrium (Y)	MoSâ‚‚	-5.83	>1.0	[7]
Hydrogen (Hâ‚‚)	SnSâ‚‚	-0.049 to -0.063	Minimal	[17]
Hydrogen (Hâ‚‚)	S-vacancy SnSâ‚‚	-0.086	Significant	[17]

The data in Table 1 reveals fundamental trends in adsorption energetics. For transition metal adsorbates on TMDs, early transition metals (Sc, Y) exhibit unexpectedly weaker adsorption energies despite greater charge transfer, while middle transition metals (Ti, Zr, Hf) show stronger adsorption interactions [7]. This indicates that charge transfer alone cannot fully describe adsorption behavior; the ability of the adsorbate to hybridize effectively with the substrate plays a crucial role in determining adsorption strength. Metals with fully filled d-orbitals (Zn, Cd, Hg) consistently display the weakest adsorption energies, sometimes even positive values, reflecting their limited hybridization capability [7].

Adsorption-Transition State Relationships in Catalytic Reactions

Table 2: Adsorption Energy Effects on Reaction Kinetics in Selected Systems

Reaction System	Key Finding	Impact on Activation Barrier	Reference
NH₃ decomposition on Pt(100) vs Pt(111)	Pt(100) has superior activity due to lower barriers	Reduced barriers on Pt(100) surface	[18]
Hâ‚‚ adsorption on pristine vs defective SnSâ‚‚	S-vacancy increases adsorption energy by ~70%	Not measured directly	[17]
Co-adsorbed H on Pt(111)	Inhibits NH₃ decomposition at high coverage	Significant barrier increase on Pt(111)	[18]
Co-adsorbed H on Pt(100)	Minimal impact on NH₃ decomposition	Stable reaction energetics	[18]

The structure-sensitivity of adsorption-strength relationships emerges clearly from comparative studies. For ammonia decomposition, Pt(100) facets maintain stable reaction energetics even under high hydrogen coverage, while Pt(111) facets exhibit significant inhibition with increased reaction barriers and destabilized intermediates [18]. This facet-dependent behavior demonstrates how transition state geometry responds differently to adsorption strength variations depending on the atomic arrangement of the catalyst surface. The identification of N-N coupling and Nâ‚‚ desorption as rate-limiting steps further highlights how specific elementary reactions exhibit distinct sensitivities to adsorption strength variations [18].

Diagram 1: Transition State Evolution with Adsorption Strength. The diagram illustrates how transition state geometry shifts from early (reactant-like) to late (product-like) configurations as adsorption strength increases, following the Bell-Evans-Polanyi principle.

Computational Methodologies for Characterizing Energy Landscapes

First-Principles Density Functional Theory

Density Functional Theory (DFT) serves as the foundational computational method for calculating adsorption energies and mapping transition state geometries at the atomic scale. Modern DFT protocols employ carefully parameterized exchange-correlation functionals to balance accuracy with computational feasibility:

• Van der Waals Corrections: For systems dominated by weak interactions, such as Hâ‚‚ adsorption on SnSâ‚‚, the revPBE-vdW functional explicitly includes dispersion forces [17]. This approach yields adsorption energies in the range of -49 to -63 meV for Hâ‚‚ on pristine SnSâ‚‚, increasing to approximately -86 meV for sulfur-deficient surfaces [17].

• Spin-Polarized Calculations: Magnetic elements (Fe, Co, Ni, etc.) require spin-polarized DFT to accurately capture their electronic structure and adsorption properties [15]. The AQCat25 dataset represents a significant advancement in this regard, incorporating spin polarization for magnetic systems to improve prediction fidelity [15].

• Plane-Wave Basis Sets: Typical calculations employ plane-wave cutoffs of 500-650 eV with projector augmented wave (PAW) pseudopotentials to describe electron-ion interactions [17] [15]. Brillouin zone integration uses Monkhorst-Pack k-point grids, typically 4×4×1 for 2D materials, with convergence thresholds of 10⁻⁵ eV for energy and 0.01 eV/Ã… for forces [17].

Machine Learning Interatomic Potentials

The computational expense of DFT has motivated development of Machine Learning Interatomic Potentials (MLIPs) that approach quantum accuracy at significantly reduced cost. Frameworks like CatBench systematically benchmark MLIP performance across diverse adsorption reactions, with best-performing models achieving ~0.2 eV accuracy in adsorption energy predictions [16]. Universal MLIPs trained on massive datasets (e.g., the Open Catalyst Project's nearly 300 million DFT calculations) enable large-scale screening of catalyst materials while maintaining transferability across chemical space [15].

Recent multi-fidelity approaches integrate limited high-fidelity data (including spin polarization) with larger lower-fidelity datasets, achieving accuracy comparable to single-fidelity models with eight times less costly high-fidelity data [15]. These advances address critical gaps in previous datasets, particularly for industrially relevant catalytic processes involving earth-abundant first-row transition metals that exhibit strong spin polarization effects [15].

Microkinetic Modeling and Kinetic Monte Carlo

Connecting atomic-scale adsorption energetics to macroscopic reaction rates requires microkinetic modeling based on DFT-calculated parameters. For complex systems like NH₃ decomposition on Pt surfaces, this approach reveals how co-adsorbed hydrogen species inhibit reaction kinetics by increasing activation barriers and destabilizing intermediates [18].

Kinetic Monte Carlo (kMC) simulations extend this capability by modeling stochastic processes of adsorption, desorption, and surface diffusion. For Hâ‚‚ adsorption on SnSâ‚‚, kMC implementations utilize desorption energies equal to the negative of adsorption energies and diffusion barriers derived from transition state theory [17]. These simulations track surface coverage evolution under varying temperature and pressure conditions, providing insights into operational performance under realistic environments.

Case Studies in Applied Systems

Resistive Switching in Transition Metal Dichalcogenides

In non-volatile resistive switching (NVRS) devices based on monolayer TMDs (MoS₂, MoSe₂, WS₂, WSe₂), adsorption and desorption of metal adatoms modulate resistivity through point defect formation and dissolution [7]. The adsorption energy of transition metal adatoms (Au, Ag, Cu) onto chalcogen vacancies directly correlates with switching energy—the energy required to change the resistive state of the device [7]. First-principles calculations reveal consistent periodic trends across TMDs, with adsorption energies following the order Cu (-2.96 eV) > Au (-2.64 eV) > Ag (-2.19 eV) on MoS₂ [7]. This structure-property relationship enables rational selection of TMD-adsorbate pairs to optimize NVRS device performance for next-generation computing technologies.

Hydrogen Storage and Sensing Applications

Two-dimensional SnSâ‚‚ exhibits promising characteristics for hydrogen storage applications, with vdW-DFT calculations revealing adsorption energies of -49 to -63 meV on pristine surfaces [17]. While these weak interactions limit storage capacity at room temperature, sulfur vacancies increase adsorption energies to approximately -86 meV through enhanced charge transfer and orbital hybridization [17]. The repulsive interaction between adjacent Hâ‚‚ molecules further limits surface coverage, presenting both challenges and opportunities for material design. Kinetic Monte Carlo simulations built on DFT parameters enable prediction of coverage dynamics under operational temperature and pressure conditions, guiding material optimization for practical storage applications [17].

Research Reagent Solutions and Computational Tools

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools for Adsorption and Transition State Analysis

Tool Category	Specific Implementation	Primary Function	Application Example
DFT Codes	VASP [17] [15]	Electronic structure calculation	Adsorption energy computation
	Quantum ESPRESSO [19]	DFT with plane-wave basis	Drug-nanoparticle interactions
Machine Learning Potentials	CatBench [16]	MLIP benchmarking	Adsorption energy prediction
	Universal Model for Atoms (UMA) [15]	Multi-task surrogate modeling	Catalyst restructuring effects
Catalysis Databases	Catalysis-hub.org [14]	Adsorption energy repository	Transition metal screening
	AQCat25 Dataset [15]	Spin-polarized reference data	Magnetic catalyst modeling
Analysis Tools	Bader Charge Analysis [7] [17]	Electron partitioning	Charge transfer quantification
	Microkinetic Modeling [18]	Reaction kinetics simulation	NH₃ decomposition pathways

Diagram 2: Integrated Workflow for Adsorption-Transition State Research. The diagram outlines the iterative computational and experimental pipeline for establishing adsorption-strength relationships, from first-principles calculations to experimental validation.

The fundamental relationship between adsorption strength and transition state geometry represents a unifying principle across diverse domains of materials science and catalysis. As demonstrated through the case studies presented herein, adsorption energy serves as a powerful descriptor for predicting and rationalizing catalytic activity, materials functionality, and device performance. The consistency of this relationship across different material systems—from transition metal catalysts to 2D materials—underscores its robustness as a design principle.

Future advances in this field will likely emerge from several key directions: (1) increased incorporation of high-fidelity electronic structure effects, particularly spin polarization, in machine learning potentials; (2) development of multi-scale modeling frameworks that connect atomic-scale adsorption phenomena to device-level performance; and (3) systematic experimental validation of predicted structure-property relationships across well-defined material systems. As computational methodologies continue evolving toward greater accuracy and efficiency, the fundamental principles governing adsorption strength and transition state geometry will remain essential for rational design of advanced materials and catalysts addressing pressing energy and technological challenges.

In synthetic chemistry and drug development, predicting and controlling the rate at which reactants convert into products is a fundamental challenge. The central concept governing this transformation is the activation energy (Ea), the energy barrier that must be overcome for a reaction to proceed [20]. Reaction kinetics provides the framework for quantifying this process, directly determining the feasibility, scalability, and efficiency of chemical syntheses, including the production of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs). The empirical relationship between temperature and reaction rate was first captured by the Arrhenius equation, ( k = A e^{-E_a/RT} ), where ( k ) is the rate constant, ( A ) is the pre-exponential factor (or frequency factor), ( R ) is the universal gas constant, and ( T ) is the absolute temperature [1] [21]. A higher activation energy signifies a reaction rate that is more sensitive to temperature changes, a critical consideration for optimizing industrial and laboratory processes.

This guide explores the intrinsic connection between adsorption energy and transition state energy, a relationship pivotal for understanding and designing catalytic cycles in heterogeneous catalysis. The energy required for an adsorbate to bind to a catalyst surface directly influences the height of the energy barrier for the subsequent chemical transformation [3]. Recent advances in computational chemistry and high-temperature experimental techniques are now enabling researchers to access and manipulate reaction pathways previously considered inaccessible, thereby expanding the synthetic toolbox available to scientists [22] [3]. The following sections provide a detailed examination of the theoretical foundations, experimental protocols, and contemporary research frontiers that define this field.

Theoretical Foundations: From Arrhenius to Transition State Theory

While the Arrhenius equation successfully describes the temperature dependence of reaction rates, Transition State Theory (TST) provides a more profound physical interpretation of the parameters involved. TST posits that reactions proceed through a high-energy, quasi-equilibrium transition state (or activated complex) located at the saddle point of the potential energy surface connecting reactants to products [1] [21]. The formation of this transition state acts as the kinetic bottleneck for the reaction.

The core equation of TST, the Eyring equation, directly relates the rate constant to thermodynamic parameters of activation: [ k = \kappa \frac{kB T}{h} e^{-\Delta G^{\ddagger}/RT} ] where ( \kappa ) is the transmission coefficient (often approximated as 1), ( kB ) is Boltzmann's constant, ( h ) is Planck's constant, and ( \Delta G^{\ddagger} ) is the standard Gibbs free energy of activation [1]. This equation can be expanded to: [ k = \frac{kB T}{h} e^{\Delta S^{\ddagger}/R} e^{-\Delta H^{\ddagger}/RT} ] where ( \Delta S^{\ddagger} ) is the entropy of activation and ( \Delta H^{\ddagger} ) is the enthalpy of activation. In this framework, the entropic term ( \frac{kB T}{h} e^{\Delta S^{\ddagger}/R} ) provides a physical interpretation for the Arrhenius pre-exponential factor ( A ), while ( \Delta H^{\ddagger} ) relates closely to the empirical activation energy ( E_a ) [1] [21].

The reaction progress can be visualized on a potential energy surface. For a simple reaction, the path from reactants to products involves overcoming the activation energy barrier, ( Ea ), corresponding to the formation of the transition state. The adsorption energy of reactants onto a catalyst surface, a key parameter in heterogeneous catalysis, directly modifies this landscape by stabilizing the transition state and thus lowering ( Ea ), which dramatically increases the reaction rate [3].

[caption]Figure 1. Energy landscape for a chemical reaction[/caption]

The Critical Role of Adsorption in Catalysis

In surface-mediated reactions, the interaction between gas-phase molecules and the catalyst surface is described by adsorption and desorption processes. The strength of this interaction, quantified by the adsorption energy, is a primary descriptor for catalytic activity [23] [3]. Accurate prediction of adsorption energies on transition metal surfaces remains a significant challenge for computational methods like Density Functional Theory (DFT). Inaccuracies can lead to large errors in predicted activation barriers because the transition state often closely resembles the final chemisorbed state [3]. As shown in benchmark studies, even modern functionals like BEEF-vdW and RPBE can struggle to simultaneously describe both strong covalent bonds and weak dispersion interactions accurately, highlighting the need for advanced corrective schemes [3].

Experimental Determination of Activation Energy

A core experimental methodology for determining activation energy involves measuring reaction rates at different temperatures. The following section details a standard protocol for this determination.

Detailed Experimental Protocol: Temperature-Dependent Kinetics

This procedure outlines the measurement of the activation energy for the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide catalyzed by the enzyme catalase, a model system for enzyme kinetics [20].

Research Reagent Solutions and Essential Materials

Item	Function/Brief Explanation
Glass Pressure Tube	Sealed reaction vessel to monitor gas evolution.
Teflon Threaded Plug	Seals the pressure tube; equipped with a rubber O-ring.
Gas Pressure Sensor	Measures the pressure of evolved Oâ‚‚ gas in real-time.
Computer with Logger Pro	Interfaces with the gas pressure sensor for data collection.
Temperature-Controlled Water Bath	Maintains a constant temperature for each kinetic run.
Hydrogen Peroxide (H₂O₂) Stock	Reactant whose decomposition is studied (H₂O₂ → H₂O + ½O₂).
Phosphate Buffer	Maintains a constant pH for the enzymatic reaction.
Catalase Enzyme Stock	Biological catalyst that lowers the activation energy for Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚ decomposition.
Magnetic Stir Plate & Stir Bar	Provides vigorous stirring to ensure rapid mixing and Oâ‚‚ evolution.

Step-by-Step Workflow [20]:

• Apparatus Setup: Assemble the reaction system as illustrated in Figure 2. The core component is a glass pressure tube seated in a temperature-controlled water bath. The tube is sealed with a Teflon plug connected via a luer lock to a gas pressure sensor.
• Temperature Equilibration: Heat the water bath to a target temperature between 5°C and 40°C (multiple temperatures, e.g., 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35°C, are required). Monitor the temperature with a thermometer and maintain it constant using ice or heat as needed.
• Reaction Initiation and Data Acquisition: For each trial, load the pressure tube with fixed volumes of stock Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚ (e.g., 1.00 mL) and phosphate buffer (e.g., 23.00 mL). Start the Logger Pro data collection and then rapidly inject the stock enzyme solution (e.g., 1.00 mL) to initiate the reaction. Ensure the stir bar is set to a consistent, vigorous speed for all trials.
• Data Collection Replication: Perform at least seven independent kinetic runs, each at a different temperature within the specified range.
• Data Analysis: a. From the pressure vs. time data for each run, determine the initial rate of the reaction. b. Since the enzyme concentration is constant, the initial rate is proportional to the rate constant ( k ). Thus, ( k \propto \text{initial rate} ). c. Apply the linearized form of the Arrhenius equation: ( \ln k = \ln A - \frac{Ea}{R} \left( \frac{1}{T} \right) ). d. Plot ( \ln k ) (y-axis) against ( \frac{1}{T} ) in Kelvin (x-axis). The data should approximate a straight line. e. The slope of the best-fit line is ( -Ea/R ), from which the activation energy is calculated: ( E_a = -\text{slope} \times R ).

[caption]Figure 2. Experimental workflow for determining activation energy[/caption]

Advanced and High-Temperature Methodologies

Beyond conventional solution-phase chemistry, specialized techniques enable the study of reactions with extremely high activation barriers. Recent research demonstrates that high-temperature synthesis in solution (up to 500°C) can overcome formidable activation energies of 50–70 kcal mol⁻¹, which are unreachable under standard conditions. Using sealed capillaries and solvents like p-xylene, this method has achieved product yields up to 50% in minutes for reactions like the isomerization of N-substituted pyrazoles, bridging a significant gap in synthetic methodology [22].

In solid-state and materials chemistry, techniques like thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) are coupled with isoconversional methods such as the Kissinger–Akahira–Sunose (KAS) method to determine the apparent activation energy of complex processes like the hydrogen reduction of metal oxides during the fabrication of high-entropy alloys [24].

Contemporary Research and Data Presentation

Current research focuses on achieving a more accurate and balanced description of the energies governing surface reactions, particularly adsorption energies and activation barriers.

Table 1: Experimentally Determined Activation Energies in Diverse Systems

Reaction/System	Experimental Method	Activation Energy (Ea)	Key Finding/Context
Isomerization of N-substituted pyrazoles [22]	High-temperature solution synthesis (up to 500°C)	50 – 70 kcal mol⁻¹	Demonstrates the accessibility of very high barriers under extreme but practical conditions.
Hydrogen reduction of Cr₂O₃ in CoCrFeNi HEA [24]	Thermogravimetric Analysis (TGA) & KAS method	Not explicitly stated (Apparent Ea determined)	Extended ball milling (30 h) reduced the temperature needed for reduction by ~115°C, enhancing feasibility.
Acetone adsorption/desorption on Ti₁₀O₂₀ clusters [8]	DFT with dispersion corrections & TST	Gibbs free energy of activation calculated	Theoretical framework links thermodynamic energies to sensor performance metrics (response/recovery time).

Table 2: Performance of Computational Methods for Adsorption Energies on Transition Metal Surfaces [3]

Computational Method/Functional	Type	Mean Absolute Error (MAE) for Adsorption Energies	Notes on Performance
BEEF-vdW	GGA (with dispersion)	> 2.7 kcal mol⁻¹	Widely used; good for chemisorption but has room for improvement with physisorption.
RPBE	GGA	> 2.7 kcal mol⁻¹	Tends to overestimate chemisorption energies.
RPBE + D3	GGA (with dispersion)	~2.7 kcal mol⁻¹	Performance similar to BEEF-vdW when dispersion is applied selectively.
SW-R88	Hybrid (RPBE + optB88-vdW)	< 2.7 kcal mol⁻¹	Lower errors but lacks a specific functional form, complicating force calculations.
Cluster-Correction Scheme	PBC-DFT + higher-level QC	2.2 kcal mol⁻¹ (Covalent), 2.7 kcal mol⁻¹ (Non-covalent), 1.1 kcal mol⁻¹ (Barriers)	Corrects periodic DFT with cluster calculations; offers a balanced and accurate description.

A major frontier in the field is the development of more accurate computational methods. A 2022 study presented a cluster-correction scheme that combines periodic DFT calculations with higher-level quantum chemical calculations on small metal clusters. This approach significantly improves the accuracy of predicted adsorption energies and activation barriers, achieving a mean absolute error of just 1.1 kcal mol⁻¹ for activation barriers [3]. This precision is vital for the in silico design of new catalysts and materials, as it allows for reliable predictions of reaction energy paths.

The choice of theoretical model also critically impacts the interpretation of kinetic data. For instance, the pre-exponential factor ( A ) in desorption kinetics can vary by orders of magnitude depending on whether the adsorbate is modeled as a 2D ideal gas or a 2D ideal lattice gas, which in turn affects the derived desorption energy and lifetime [23]. This underscores the necessity of clearly stating the underlying model when reporting and comparing kinetic parameters.

The journey from reactants to products, governed by the principles of activation energy and reaction kinetics, is a cornerstone of chemical science. Mastery of these concepts, from the foundational Arrhenius and Transition State Theories to advanced experimental and computational methods, is indispensable for researchers aiming to develop new chemical processes, materials, and therapeutics. The ongoing refinement of techniques for measuring and predicting adsorption and activation energies, particularly through high-level computational corrections and high-temperature experimentation, continues to push the boundaries of accessible chemistry. A deep, quantitative understanding of the relationship between adsorption energy and transition state energy will remain a critical driver of innovation, enabling the rational design of catalytic systems and the synthesis of complex molecules across the pharmaceutical and materials science landscapes.

Energetic relationships, particularly those involving adsorption energies and transition state energies, serve as fundamental quantitative descriptors that bridge the gap between molecular-scale interactions and macroscopic functional outcomes in both catalysis and drug discovery. The principles of Transition State Theory (TST) provide a unified framework to understand and quantify the rates of chemical reactions, whether for a molecule binding to a catalyst surface or a drug ligand binding to a protein target. [1] [23] In catalysis, the interaction strength between an adsorbate and a catalyst surface, quantified by the adsorption energy, directly influences the activation barrier and thus the reaction rate. [25] Similarly, in pharmaceutical research, the binding free energy between a drug candidate and its biological target determines the drug's potency and efficacy. [26] [27] This technical guide explores the profound practical implications of these energetic relationships, detailing how their measurement, calculation, and manipulation are revolutionizing the design of efficient catalysts and potent therapeutics. We place this discussion within the broader context of adsorption and transition state energy relationship research, highlighting the convergent methodologies used across these seemingly distinct fields to control and optimize molecular interactions.

Theoretical Foundations: Transition State Theory and Free Energy Relationships

Core Principles of Transition State Theory

Transition State Theory (TST) explains the reaction rates of elementary chemical reactions by positing a quasi-equilibrium between reactants and an activated transition state complex. [1] The theory provides a direct connection between the thermodynamics of this activated complex and the kinetic rate constant. The central equation derived from TST is the Eyring equation:

[ k = \frac{k_B T}{h} \exp\left(-\frac{\Delta G^\ddagger}{RT}\right) ]

where (k) is the reaction rate constant, (k_B) is Boltzmann's constant, (h) is Planck's constant, (T) is temperature, (R) is the gas constant, and (\Delta G^\ddagger) is the standard Gibbs free energy of activation. [1] This free energy of activation can be decomposed into enthalpic ((\Delta H^\ddagger)) and entropic ((\Delta S^\ddagger)) components:

[ \Delta G^\ddagger = \Delta H^\ddagger - T\Delta S^\ddagger ]

The pre-exponential factor (\frac{k_B T}{h}) in the Eyring equation represents the frequency at which the activated complex converts to products, typically on the order of (10^{12}) to (10^{13}) s⁻¹ at room temperature. [1] For surface processes like adsorption and desorption, the precise form of the pre-exponential factor depends critically on the model chosen for the adsorbed state (e.g., 2D ideal gas vs. 2D ideal lattice gas), which can lead to variations of several orders of magnitude in calculated rates and derived energies. [23]

Linear Free Energy Relationships (LFERs) and Their Applications

Linear Free Energy Relationships (LFERs) are powerful tools that correlate changes in reaction free energies ((\Delta G)) with changes in activation free energies ((\Delta \Delta G^\ddagger)). These relationships emerge from the Bell-Evans-Polanyi principle and the Brensted equation, which formally connect thermodynamics to kinetics. [28] In practical terms, LFERs enable researchers to predict reaction rates or binding affinities based on simpler-to-measure equilibrium properties or molecular descriptors.

A prominent example comes from enzymology, where the electronic properties of the reduced flavin mononucleotide (FMN) coenzyme in isopentenyl diphosphate:dimethylallyl diphosphate isomerase (IDI-2) demonstrated a clear LFER. [29] As shown in Table 1, modifications to the flavin structure systematically altered both the steady-state kinetic parameters and the observed kinetic isotope effects, revealing that the flavin N5 atom serves as a general base catalyst in the isomerization reaction. [29]

Table 1: LFERs in IDI-2 Catalysis with Modified Flavin Cofactors

Flavin Analogue	(\mathbf{\Sigma\sigma})	(\mathbf{k_{cat}}) (s⁻¹)	(\mathbf{k{cat}/Km}) (µM⁻¹s⁻¹)	D(\mathbf{k_{cat}})
7,8-Clâ‚‚-FMN	0.94	0.11	0.033	2.8
7-Cl-FMN	0.37	0.029	0.018	2.2
FMN (native)	0.00	0.47	0.11	1.9
8-Me-FMN	-0.17	1.1	0.21	1.6
7-Me-FMN	-0.17	2.2	0.43	1.6

Modern applications of LFERs extend beyond mechanistic analysis to direct catalyst and drug design. Multivariate LFERs that use computationally determined descriptors of ligands or catalysts can predict experimental outcomes such as reaction rate, selectivity, or binding affinity, providing both predictive power and chemical insight into the underlying interactions governing the observed trends. [28]

Energetic Relationships in Heterogeneous Catalysis

Adsorption Energies and Catalytic Activity

In heterogeneous catalysis, the binding strength of reactants, intermediates, and products to the catalyst surface fundamentally determines the overall catalytic activity and selectivity. This relationship is formally described by the Sabatier principle, which posits that an optimal catalyst should bind reactants strongly enough to facilitate the reaction but weakly enough to allow products to desorb. Density Functional Theory (DFT) calculations of adsorption energies provide invaluable data for analyzing these chemical transformations. [25]

The immense practical impact of accurately determining adsorption energies is illustrated by the challenge of modeling methanol decomposition on transition metal surfaces. As shown in Table 2, different DFT functionals yield dramatically different adsorption energies for various reaction steps, with no single functional providing accurate estimates across all intermediates. [25] This highlights the critical need for improved computational strategies that reliably describe both strong covalent and weak dispersion interactions on transition metal surfaces.

Table 2: Challenges in Calculating Methanol Decomposition Energies (kcal mol⁻¹) on Pd(111) and Ni(111) [25]

Surface	Species	Experimental Value	PBE	optB86b-vdW	PBE+D3
Pd(111)	CH₃OH	-10.7	-4.1	-10.6	-10.4
Pd(111)	CH₃O	-62.5	-59.6	-69.2	-68.8
Pd(111)	CO	-40.0	-33.1	-46.1	-47.3
Ni(111)	CH₃OH	-10.3	-3.7	-10.4	-10.2
Ni(111)	CH₃O	-66.5	-65.4	-74.0	-73.6
Ni(111)	CO	-32.0	-26.6	-38.4	-39.2

Advanced Computational Approaches

To address the limitations of standard DFT functionals, researchers have developed hybrid approaches that combine periodic DFT calculations with higher-level quantum chemical techniques on small cluster models. [25] This method applies a correction from higher-level calculations on small metal clusters to improve periodic band structure adsorption energies and barriers. When benchmarked against 38 reliable experimental covalent and non-covalent adsorption energies and five activation barriers, this approach achieved mean absolute errors of 2.2 kcal mol⁻¹, 2.7 kcal mol⁻¹, and 1.1 kcal mol⁻¹, respectively—lower than widely used functionals like BEEF-vdW and RPBE. [25]

Another application involves using TST to analyze the adsorption and desorption of small molecules like acetone on metal oxide clusters. Ti₁₀O₂₀ clusters have been used with DFT-D calculations to determine Gibbs free energies of adsorption and activation, enabling the calculation of sensor response and recovery times as functions of temperature and acetone concentration. [8] The temperature of maximum response was calculated to be 356°C, providing practical design parameters for acetone sensing applications. [8]

Energetic Relationships in Drug-Target Binding

Binding Free Energy as a Central Determinant of Drug Efficacy

In pharmaceutical research, the binding free energy ((\Delta G)) between a drug candidate and its biological target directly determines therapeutic potency. Accurate prediction of this value has been described as the "holy grail" of computational drug discovery, as it would dramatically reduce the cost and time of drug development. [27] The binding free energy can be decomposed into various components:

[ \Delta G = \Delta E{MM} + \Delta G{solv} - T\Delta S ]

where (\Delta E{MM}) represents the gas-phase molecular mechanics energy, (\Delta G{solv}) is the solvation free energy change, and (T\Delta S) accounts for entropic contributions. [26]

Recent advances have demonstrated the power of combining quantum mechanics/molecular mechanics (QM/MM) with free energy calculation methods. In one comprehensive study, researchers developed four protocols that combine QM/MM calculations with the mining minima (M2) method, testing them on 9 targets and 203 ligands. [27] The best-performing protocol achieved a Pearson's correlation coefficient of 0.81 with experimental binding free energies and a mean absolute error of 0.60 kcal mol⁻¹, surpassing many existing methods and achieving accuracy comparable to popular relative binding free energy techniques but at significantly lower computational cost. [27]

The Critical Role of Electronic Polarization

Traditional molecular mechanics force fields often fail to adequately capture electronic polarization effects—the redistribution of electron density when a ligand binds to a protein. This limitation can be addressed by incorporating QM/MM methodologies, where the ligand is treated quantum mechanically while the protein environment is handled with molecular mechanics. [26] [27]

The importance of electronic effects is highlighted in the QM/MM-PB/SA (Poisson-Boltzmann/Surface Area) method, which introduces a QM/MM interaction energy term accounting for ligand polarization upon binding. [26] Studies comparing semi-empirical methods (DFTB-SCC, PM3, MNDO, etc.) found that implementation of a DFTB-SCC semi-empirical Hamiltonian derived from Density Functional Theory provided superior results, confirming the importance of accurate electronic contributions in binding free energy calculations. [26]

Diagram 1: QM/MM Mining Minima Workflow for Binding Free Energy Prediction

Experimental and Computational Methodologies

Protocol: Adsorption Energy Correction Using Cluster Models

This protocol improves the accuracy of adsorption energy calculations for transition metal surfaces by combining periodic DFT with higher-level cluster calculations. [25]

Materials and Computational Methods:

• Periodic DFT Code: Software such as VASP, Quantum ESPRESSO, or CASTEP for bulk surface calculations.
• Wavefunction-Based Code: Software such as MOLPRO, ORCA, or TURBOMOLE for high-level cluster calculations.
• Cluster Generation: Creation of small metal clusters representing the local binding site.

Procedure:

• Periodic Calculation: Perform a standard DFT calculation of the adsorption energy ((E_{ads}^{DFT, periodic})) using an appropriate exchange-correlation functional.
• Cluster Model Calculation:
  • Construct a cluster model (e.g., M₁₀-Mâ‚‚â‚€ atoms) representing the local adsorption site.
  • Calculate the adsorption energy ((E{ads}^{DFT, cluster})) at the same DFT level.
  • Recalculate the adsorption energy ((E{ads}^{high, cluster})) using a higher-level method (e.g., CCSD(T), DLPNO-CCSD(T)) on the same cluster.
• Correction Application:
  • Compute the energy correction: (\Delta E{corr} = E{ads}^{high, cluster} - E{ads}^{DFT, cluster})
  • Apply to the periodic result: (E{ads}^{corrected} = E{ads}^{DFT, periodic} + \Delta E{corr})
• Validation: Benchmark against reliable experimental data or higher-level calculations.

Protocol: QM/MM-Mining Minima for Binding Free Energy Estimation

This protocol enhances binding free energy predictions by incorporating QM-derived charges into a conformational sampling framework. [27]

Materials and Computational Methods:

• Software: VeraChem VM2 software, AMBER or GROMACS for MD simulations, Gaussian or ORCA for QM calculations.
• System Preparation: Protein and ligand structures in appropriate file formats (PDB, MOL2).

Procedure:

• Initial Conformational Sampling: Perform classical mining minima (MM-VM2) calculation to identify probable conformers and their weights.
• Conformer Selection: Select either the most probable conformer or multiple conformers representing a significant probability mass (e.g., >80%).
• QM/MM Charge Derivation:
  • For each selected conformer, set up a QM/MM calculation with the ligand in the QM region and the protein in the MM region.
  • Calculate the electrostatic potential (ESP) and derive restrained ESP (RESP) charges for the ligand atoms.
• Charge Replacement and Free Energy Calculation: Replace the force field atomic charges in the selected conformers with the newly derived ESP charges.
• Final Free Energy Processing: Perform free energy processing (FEPr) on the charge-corrected conformers to obtain the final binding free energy estimate.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Energetic Relationship Studies

Reagent/Software	Function	Application Context
VASP, Quantum ESPRESSO	Periodic DFT calculations	Adsorption energy on surfaces
ORCA, Gaussian	Wavefunction-based QM calculations	High-level cluster corrections
AMBER, GROMACS	Molecular dynamics simulations	Protein-ligand binding
VeraChem VM2	Mining minima calculations	Conformational sampling for binding free energy
BEEF-vdW, RPBE	Exchange-correlation functionals	DFT for surface science
CCSD(T), DLPNO-CCSD(T)	High-level electron correlation methods	Benchmark quality cluster calculations
PLUMED	Enhanced sampling plugin for MD	Free energy calculations

Emerging Trends and Future Directions

The field of energetic relationship research is rapidly evolving, with several emerging trends poised to significantly impact both catalysis and drug discovery:

• AI-Powered Trial Simulations: Quantitative systems pharmacology (QSP) models and "virtual patient" platforms are now simulating thousands of individual disease trajectories, allowing researchers to test dosing regimens and refine inclusion criteria before a single patient is dosed. AI-powered digital twins are transforming clinical development, with companies like Unlearn.ai validating digital twin-based control arms in Alzheimer's trials that can reduce placebo group sizes considerably. [30]

• Advanced Protein Degradation Modalities: PROteolysis TArgeting Chimeras (PROTACs) represent a novel therapeutic paradigm that leverages energetic relationships differently from traditional inhibitors. These small molecules drive protein degradation by bringing together the target protein with an E3 ligase. Over 80 PROTAC drugs are currently in development pipelines, with research expanding beyond the four most commonly used E3 ligases to include new targets like DCAF16, DCAF15, DCAF11, KEAP1, and FEM1B. [30]

• Multivariate LFERs for Rational Design: The application of multivariate LFERs using purely computational data is gaining traction for both catalyst design and drug optimization. These approaches isolate features of complex chemical systems, achieving both quantitative prediction of interaction energetics and clear interpretability, providing chemical insight into the underlying interactions that influence observed trends. [28]

Diagram 2: Interdisciplinary Connections in Energetic Relationship Research

Energetic relationships, particularly those involving adsorption energies and transition state energies, serve as fundamental design parameters that transcend the traditional boundaries between heterogeneous catalysis and pharmaceutical research. The unified framework provided by Transition State Theory enables researchers in both fields to connect molecular-level interactions to functional outcomes, whether reaction rates or binding affinities. Advanced computational methodologies—from cluster-corrected DFT for surface science to QM/MM mining minima for drug binding—are progressively enhancing our ability to accurately predict and optimize these energetic relationships. As emerging trends in AI, multivariate LFERs, and novel therapeutic modalities continue to evolve, the strategic manipulation of energetic relationships will undoubtedly remain central to the rational design of next-generation catalysts and therapeutics. The convergent approaches across these disciplines highlight the power of physical organic chemistry principles to address diverse challenges in molecular design and optimization.

Computational Strategies: From DFT to Machine Learning for Energy Profiling

Density Functional Theory (DFT) represents a computational quantum mechanical modelling method widely employed in physics, chemistry, and materials science to investigate the electronic structure of many-body systems, particularly atoms, molecules, and condensed phases [31]. For researchers studying adsorption processes and reaction barriers, DFT serves as an indispensable tool that enables the prediction of material behavior from first principles without requiring empirical parameters. The fundamental premise of DFT lies in using functionals of the spatially dependent electron density to determine system properties [31]. This approach transforms the intractable many-body problem of interacting electrons into a tractable single-body problem through the Kohn-Sham equations, making complex surface interactions computationally feasible [31].

In the context of adsorption energy and transition state calculations, DFT provides atomic-level insights that are often challenging to obtain experimentally. The theory's versatility allows researchers to model the interaction between adsorbates and substrate surfaces, quantify the strength of these interactions through adsorption energies, and identify the transition states that dictate reaction pathways and rates. This whitepaper provides a comprehensive technical guide to applying DFT for adsorption and barrier calculations, framed within ongoing research into the relationship between adsorption energy and transition state energy.

Theoretical Foundations

Fundamental DFT Principles

The theoretical foundation of DFT rests on two seminal theorems proved by Hohenberg and Kohn. The first theorem demonstrates that the ground-state properties of a many-electron system are uniquely determined by an electron density that depends on only three spatial coordinates [31]. This revolutionary insight reduces the many-body problem of N electrons with 3N spatial coordinates to just three spatial coordinates, significantly simplifying computational complexity. The second HK theorem defines an energy functional for the system and proves that the ground-state electron density minimizes this energy functional [31].

The Kohn-Sham equations, developed later, form the practical basis for most modern DFT calculations [31]:

[\hat{H}^{\text{KS}} \psii = \left[ -\frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \nabla^2 + V{\text{eff}}(\mathbf{r}) \right] \psii = \epsiloni \psi_i]

where (V{\text{eff}}(\mathbf{r}) = V{\text{ext}}(\mathbf{r}) + \int \frac{n(\mathbf{r}')}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|} d\mathbf{r}' + V_{\text{XC}}(\mathbf{r})) represents the effective potential comprising external, Hartree, and exchange-correlation potentials [31]. The central challenge in DFT calculations remains the accurate modeling of the exchange-correlation functional, which must approximate all non-classical electron interactions.

Adsorption Energy Formalism

The adsorption energy ((E_{\text{ads}})) quantifies the strength of interaction between an adsorbate and a substrate surface, serving as a fundamental metric in surface science and catalysis research. This energy is calculated using the formula:

[E{\text{ads}} = E{\text{total}} - (E{\text{substrate}} + E{\text{adsorbate}})]

where (E{\text{total}}) represents the total energy of the adsorption system, (E{\text{substrate}}) is the energy of the pristine substrate, and (E_{\text{adsorbate}}) is the energy of the isolated adsorbate molecule [32]. A negative adsorption energy value indicates a thermodynamically favorable adsorption process [32].

The magnitude of adsorption energy helps distinguish between physisorption (typically -0.6 to -0.1 eV) and chemisorption (typically -4.0 to -0.6 eV). For example, DFT investigations of hydrogen adsorption on aluminum surfaces revealed adsorption energies that indicated stable binding, with cohesive energy calculated at 3.677 eV/atom, showing less than 10% error compared to experimental values [33]. Similarly, studies of iodine species on graphite surfaces found binding energies spanning 21-33 kJ/mol (approximately 0.22-0.34 eV), with no significant charge transfer, indicating strong physisorption [34].

Transition State Theory and Barrier Calculations

Transition state theory provides the theoretical framework for understanding reaction kinetics and barriers. A transition state represents a first-order saddle point on the potential energy surface—a point that is a local maximum in the reaction coordinate direction but a local minimum in all other perpendicular directions [35]. This saddle point is characterized by a single imaginary vibrational frequency, which physically represents the molecular vibration along which reactants convert to products [35].

Table: Characteristics of Stationary Points on Potential Energy Surfaces

Point Type	Energy Gradient	Curvature (Hessian Eigenvalues)	Imaginary Frequencies
Local Minimum	Zero	All positive	None
Transition State	Zero	One negative, others positive	One
Higher-Order Saddle Point	Zero	Multiple negative	Multiple

The energy barrier for a reaction is calculated as the difference between the transition state energy and the reactant state energy. For surface reactions, this often involves adsorbed species, creating a direct connection between adsorption energy and reaction barriers. The relationship can be expressed as:

[E{\text{barrier}} = E{\text{TS}} - E_{\text{adsorbed reactant}}]

where (E{\text{TS}}) is the transition state energy and (E{\text{adsorbed reactant}}) is the energy of the adsorbed reactant species.

Computational Methodologies

DFT Workflow for Adsorption and Barrier Calculations

The following diagram illustrates the comprehensive workflow for DFT calculations of adsorption energies and reaction barriers:

Key Methodological Considerations

Exchange-Correlation Functionals

The choice of exchange-correlation functional critically impacts the accuracy of DFT calculations. The Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE) functional within the generalized gradient approximation (GGA) remains widely used for surface calculations [34] [33] [36]. For systems dominated by van der Waals interactions, dispersion corrections (such as DFT-D3) are essential [34] [36]. Studies of iodine on graphite demonstrated that binding energies were approximately five times greater when van der Waals interactions were included compared to calculations without these corrections [34].

Model Systems and Convergence

Surface adsorption is typically modeled using slab structures with periodic boundary conditions. A vacuum region of sufficient size (typically 15-20 Å) prevents interactions between periodic images [34] [33] [36]. Convergence testing of k-point meshes, plane-wave cutoff energies, and slab thickness is essential. For graphite surfaces representing activated carbon, studies have employed slabs with 3×3 unit cells (54 atoms) to 7×7 unit cells (294 atoms) to balance computational cost and accuracy [34].

Transition State Location Methods

Locating transition states requires specialized algorithms. The climbing image nudged elastic band (CI-NEB) method is widely used to find minimum energy paths between initial and final states [35]. This method discretizes the reaction pathway into images and optimizes them to find the saddle point. The dimer method provides an alternative approach that searches for saddle points without knowledge of the final state [35].

Research Applications and Case Studies

Adsorption of Iodine Species on Graphite

Nuclear safety research employs DFT to understand fission product capture, particularly radioactive iodine. A 2023 study investigated the adsorption of inorganic iodine species (I₂, HI, HOI, HIO₂, HIO₃) on graphite surfaces using PBE-D3 methodology [34]. The research revealed binding energies of 21-33 kJ/mol with graphite-iodine distances of 3.52-3.93 Å [34]. Charge analysis indicated no significant charge transfer, confirming physisorption as the dominant mechanism [34]. This fundamental understanding informs the design of nuclear accident response strategies.

Table: DFT-Calculated Adsorption Energies for Iodine Species on Graphite [34]

Iodine Species	Binding Energy (kJ/mol)	Binding Energy (eV)	Graphite-Iodine Distance (Ã…)	Adsorption Type
Iâ‚‚	21-33	0.22-0.34	3.52-3.93	Physisorption
HI	21-33	0.22-0.34	3.52-3.93	Physisorption
HOI	21-33	0.22-0.34	3.52-3.93	Physisorption
HIOâ‚‚	21-33	0.22-0.34	3.52-3.93	Physisorption
HIO₃	21-33	0.22-0.34	3.52-3.93	Physisorption

Hydrogen Adsorption and Diffusion on Aluminum

Clean energy applications drive research into hydrogen storage materials. A DFT investigation of hydrogen behavior on aluminum surfaces examined adsorption, diffusion, and dissolution mechanisms [33]. The study employed slab models with vacuum regions and ultrasoft pseudopotentials within the PBE functional [33]. Results provided activation energies for hydrogen diffusion pathways, essential for understanding hydrogen embrittlement and storage tank design [33]. The research demonstrated DFT's capability to model complex processes from surface adsorption to bulk diffusion.

Bâ‚‚N Monolayer for Toxic Gas Detection

Environmental monitoring applications leverage DFT to design novel sensors. A 2024 study explored B₂N monolayers for detecting harmful gases (CO, NO, NO₂, SO₂, O₃) [36]. Using PBE-D3 methodology, researchers calculated adsorption energies of -1.96, -1.39, -1.80, -0.70, and -2.36 eV for CO, NO, NO₂, SO₂, and O₃, respectively [36]. The B₂N monolayer showed particular promise for SO₂ detection with favorable recovery time, suggesting applications in environmental monitoring [36].

Table: DFT-Calculated Adsorption Properties of Harmful Gases on Bâ‚‚N Monolayer [36]

Gas Molecule	Adsorption Energy (eV)	Band Gap Change (%)	Recovery Time	Sensing Application
CO	-1.96	N/A	Long	Limited
NO	-1.39	N/A	Long	Limited
NOâ‚‚	-1.80	N/A	Long	Limited
SOâ‚‚	-0.70	N/A	Favorable	Excellent
O₃	-2.36	N/A	Long	Limited

Research Reagent Solutions

Table: Essential Computational "Reagents" for DFT Adsorption and Barrier Calculations

Component	Function	Examples & Notes
Exchange-Correlation Functional	Approximates quantum mechanical electron interactions	PBE [34] [33] [36], PW91 [32]; GGA for general use, meta-GGA for improved accuracy
Dispersion Correction	Accounts for van der Waals forces	DFT-D3 [34] [36]; Essential for physisorption systems
Pseudopotentials	Represents core electrons, reduces computational cost	Ultrasoft [33], Norm-conserving [36]; Choice affects accuracy and computational efficiency
Basis Set	Expands electronic wavefunctions	Plane waves [33] [36]; Cutoff energy (400-600 eV typical) must be converged
K-point Grid	Samples Brillouin zone for periodic systems	Monkhorst-Pack [36]; Density depends on system size; 4×3×1 used for B₂N [36]
Slab Model	Represents surface for adsorption studies	Graphite (0001) [34], Al(100) [33]; Vacuum region (15-20 Ã…) prevents periodic interactions
Convergence Criteria	Ensures self-consistent solution	Energy, force, and displacement thresholds [32]; Typical: 10⁻⁵ eV, 0.01-0.05 eV/Å

Software and Computational Tools

DFT calculations require specialized software packages, which generally fall into two categories: all-electron codes that explicitly treat all electrons, and pseudopotential codes that replace core electrons with effective potentials. Popular packages include Quantum ESPRESSO [33], SIESTA [36], and VASP. These packages solve the Kohn-Sham equations self-consistently using various numerical approaches and basis sets.

The computational workflow typically involves multiple steps: structure preparation, geometry optimization, electronic structure analysis, and specialized calculations for properties like adsorption energies or transition states. High-performance computing resources are essential, with system size and computational cost scaling approximately as O(N³) for diagonalization, where N is the number of electrons.

Current Challenges and Methodological Limitations

Despite its widespread success, DFT faces several challenges in adsorption and barrier calculations. The treatment of strongly correlated systems remains difficult, with standard functionals often inadequately describing electronic correlations [31]. van der Waals interactions, critical in physisorption, require additional corrections beyond standard functionals [31] [34].

DFT also struggles with accurately predicting band gaps in semiconductors, which affects the modeling of electronic properties in sensing applications [31]. For transition state calculations, the computational expense increases significantly as system size grows, and the accuracy of barrier heights depends critically on the exchange-correlation functional [35].

Recent developments address some limitations through hybrid functionals (mixing exact exchange with DFT exchange), non-local van der Waals functionals, and DFT+U approaches for strongly correlated systems. Machine learning approaches are also emerging to accelerate calculations and improve accuracy.

Density Functional Theory has established itself as the workhorse for computational investigations of adsorption processes and reaction barriers. Its ability to provide atomic-level insights into surface interactions, adsorption strengths, and reaction pathways makes it invaluable across diverse fields from nuclear safety to clean energy and environmental monitoring. While methodological challenges remain, ongoing developments in exchange-correlation functionals, dispersion corrections, and computational efficiency continue to expand DFT's capabilities.

The relationship between adsorption energy and transition state energy represents a particularly active research area, with implications for catalyst design and reaction engineering. As computational power grows and methodological sophistication increases, DFT will continue to provide fundamental insights that connect electronic structure with macroscopic observables, enabling more rational design of materials for adsorption and catalytic applications.

In computational chemistry and materials science, understanding reaction pathways is fundamental to relating adsorption energy to catalytic activity and other dynamic processes. The central energy barrier along a reaction pathway is the transition state, a first-order saddle point on the potential energy surface (PES). This technical guide details core traditional methods for locating these critical points, providing researchers with the protocols and theoretical background necessary to apply them within energy relationship studies.

Table 1: Comparison of Traditional Saddle Point Location Methods

Method	Core Principle	Key Requirement	Identifies MEP?	Identifies TS?	Computational Cost
LST (Linear Synchronous Transit)	Linear interpolation between endpoints [37].	Reactant and product geometries.	No	Approximate	Low
QST (Quadratic Synchronous Transit)	Sequential LST and eigenvector-following [37].	Reactant and product geometries.	No	Yes	Moderate
NEB (Nudged Elastic Band)	Simultaneous optimization of images along the path with spring forces [38] [37].	Reactant and product geometries; number of images.	Yes	No (without CI)	High
CI-NEB (Climbing Image NEB)	NEB variant where the highest energy image climbs to the saddle [38] [37].	Reactant and product geometries; number of images.	Yes	Yes	High
Dimer	Uses two closely spaced images to probe local curvature and escape saddle points [39].	Initial starting geometry.	No	Yes	Moderate

Detailed Methodologies

Nudged Elastic Band (NEB) and Climbing Image NEB (CI-NEB)

The Nudged Elastic Band method is designed to find the Minimum Energy Path (MEP) between known reactant and product states. Some variants, like the Climbing Image (CI-NEB), also specifically find the transition state along this path [37].

Core Theory

The method creates a discrete band of images (structures) interpolating between the initial and final states. This band is optimized such that it relaxes onto the MEP. This is achieved by a special treatment of the forces acting on each image i [37]:

• Spring Forces: Applied only parallel to the band (F^S_i∥) to maintain image distribution.
• True Potential Forces: Applied only perpendicular to the band (-∇E(R_i)⟘) to drive the band down to the MEP.

The total force on an image is: Fi = F^Si∥ - ∇E(R_i)⟘ [37]

The CI-NEB enhancement identifies the highest energy image after preliminary convergence and replaces its force calculation. This "climbing image" has its spring force removed and the parallel component of the true force is reversed, driving it uphill along the band and downhill in all other directions until it reaches the saddle point [38] [37]: Fi,max = -∇E(Ri,max) + 2∇E(R_i,max)∥ [37]

Experimental Protocol

A typical computational workflow for a NEB calculation, as implemented in codes like AMS, is as follows [38]:

• Geometry Optimization: Independently optimize the geometries of the initial (reactant) and final (product) systems to their local energy minima.
• Path Initialization: Generate an initial guess for the reaction path. This is often done via linear interpolation between the optimized endpoints in internal or Cartesian coordinates. For complex paths, a better initial guess can be loaded from a previous calculation (e.g., PESScan) using the LoadPath feature.
• IDPP Pre-Optimization (Optional): Use the Image-Dependent Pair Potential (IDPP) method to refine the initial interpolated path. This can prevent unrealistic atom collisions and improve convergence.
• NEB Calculation Setup:
  • Specify the Task as NEB.
  • Define the System blocks for initial and final states. Atom order must be consistent across all systems.
  • In the NEB input block, set key parameters:
    • Images: Number of intermediate images (e.g., 8).
    • Spring: Spring force constant (e.g., 1.0 Hartree/Bohr²).
    • Climbing Yes: To activate the CI-NEB algorithm.
    • Iterations: Maximum optimization steps.
• Simultaneous Path Optimization: The optimizer minimizes the forces on all images according to the NEB force rules. This step is computationally intensive, often requiring hundreds to thousands of energy and gradient evaluations.
• Analysis: Upon convergence, the sequence of images represents the MEP. The image with the highest energy (the climbing image in CI-NEB) is the transition state.

Dimer Method

Originally developed in molecular dynamics, the Dimer method is a first-order technique that efficiently escapes saddle points by estimating the lowest curvature direction.

Core Theory

The method operates with two closely spaced images (a "dimer") to probe the local curvature of the PES without calculating the full Hessian matrix. The central principle involves [39]:

• Curvature Estimation: The rotation of the dimer axis is used to approximate the smallest eigenvector of the Hessian (the direction of negative curvature).
• Gradient Projection: The optimizer then projects the gradient onto the subspace orthogonal to this estimated direction. This guides the search away from saddle points and flat regions, effectively enabling a form of curvature-aware descent.

Experimental Protocol

A protocol for the Dimer method, and its recent adaptation Dimer-Enhanced Optimization (DEO) for machine learning, involves [39]:

• Initialization: Start from an initial geometry on the PES. In neural network training, this is the initial parameter set.
• Dimer Construction: Create a dimer by adding a small, random displacement vector to the current position.
• Curvature Estimation:
  • Calculate the energy gradient at both endpoints of the dimer.
  • Rotate the dimer to minimize its energy, which aligns it with the direction of minimum curvature.
• Gradient Modification: Modify the true gradient by removing its component along the estimated lowest eigenvector.
• Update Step: Take an optimization step (e.g., via SGD or Adam) using this modified gradient.
• Iteration: Periodically repeat the dimer rotation and gradient modification steps throughout the optimization to continue escaping saddle regions.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Software and Computational Tools

Item	Function in Research	Example Use Case
AMS Software	A commercial modeling suite containing a robust implementation of NEB and CI-NEB [38].	Performing NEB calculations for reactions on surfaces or in clusters.
ASE (Atomic Simulation Environment)	A Python toolkit that can interface with multiple electronic structure codes (e.g., VASP, GPAW) to run NEB calculations externally [37].	Creating a flexible workflow using a preferred DFT code as the energy calculator.
VASP	A widely used electronic structure code for atomic-scale materials modeling, with built-in NEB functionality [37].	Calculating reaction pathways in periodic bulk systems.
Bayesian Optimization Framework	Models unknown (black-box) objectives with Gaussian processes to locate local saddle points in zero-sum games [40].	Optimizing nonconvex-nonconcave functions where gradient information is unavailable.
DEO Code (e.g., PyTorch)	Implementation of Dimer-Enhanced Optimization for training large neural networks [39].	Escaping saddle points efficiently in high-dimensional parameter spaces of DNNs.
Exatecan Intermediate 4	Exatecan Intermediate 4, MF:C11H14ClFN2O, MW:244.69 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Mal-PEG5-C2-NH2 hydrochloride	Mal-PEG5-C2-NH2 hydrochloride, MF:C16H29ClN2O7, MW:396.9 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Workflow Visualization

Nudged Elastic Band (NEB) Workflow

Dimer Method Mechanism

Traditional methods like NEB and Dimer provide powerful, well-established strategies for mapping reaction pathways and identifying transition states. The choice of method depends heavily on the research problem: NEB is ideal for finding the full MEP between known states, while the Dimer method excels at efficiently escaping saddle points from a single starting configuration. Mastery of these tools is indispensable for advancing research into adsorption and transition state energy relationships, enabling the prediction and design of materials with tailored catalytic properties.

The rational design of novel materials and catalysts hinges on a fundamental understanding of chemical reactions and surface interactions, processes governed by two critical energetic parameters: transition states (TSs) and adsorption energies. The transition state, a high-energy, transient configuration along the reaction pathway, dictates reaction kinetics and selectivity [41]. Adsorption energy, which quantifies the binding strength between a reactant and a catalyst surface, is a crucial descriptor of catalytic activity and selectivity [42]. Accurate prediction of these properties is therefore paramount for advancing fields like drug discovery and sustainable chemical process development.

Traditional computational methods, primarily based on quantum chemical calculations like density functional theory (DFT), have been the workhorses for determining these parameters [41] [7]. However, they face significant challenges. TS optimization via methods like nudged elastic band (NEB) or dimer calculations is computationally expensive, often requires expert knowledge for initial guesses, and struggles with large molecular systems [41] [43]. Similarly, the vast compositional and structural space of modern catalytic materials, such as high-entropy alloys (HEAs) and metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), makes exhaustive DFT screening of adsorption energies practically infeasible [44] [42].

In response to these limitations, machine learning (ML) has emerged as a transformative tool. By learning from existing quantum chemical data, ML models can predict transition state structures and adsorption energies with high accuracy in a fraction of the time, dramatically accelerating the pace of research and discovery [41] [42]. This technical guide explores the core ML methodologies, experimental protocols, and computational tools that are driving this revolution, framed within the critical relationship between adsorption energy and transition state energy in chemical research.

Machine Learning Approaches for Transition State Prediction

From Traditional Computation to ML Models

The field of transition state searching has evolved substantially from traditional computational methods to modern ML architectures. Conventional approaches like linear synchronous transit (LST) and the nudged elastic band (NEB) method explore the potential energy surface (PES) to locate saddle points but are often hampered by high computational costs and a reliance on expert intuition for initial structure guesses [41]. ML methods address these bottlenecks by leveraging existing data to make rapid predictions.

Table 1: Evolution of Key Methods for Transition State Prediction

Method Category	Examples	Key Characteristics	Limitations
Traditional Computational Methods	Linear Synchronous Transit (LST), Nudged Elastic Band (NEB), Dimer Method [41]	Well-established theoretical foundations; double-ended methods use reactant/product geometries as constraints [41].	High computational cost; scalability issues; requires expert knowledge for initial guesses [41].
Classical Machine Learning	Support Vector Machine (SVM), Gaussian Process Regression (GPR), Kernel Ridge Regression (KRR) [41]	Relatively simple models; can be effective with good feature engineering.	Performance limited by the quality of handcrafted features; may struggle with complex molecular systems.
Deep Learning Architectures	Graph Neural Networks (GNNs), Equivariant GNNs (EGNN), Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) [41] [43]	Directly learn from structural data (e.g., graphs, bitmaps); high accuracy and generalization [43].	Require large, high-quality datasets; computationally intensive training.
Emerging Generative Models	Object-Aware Equivariant Diffusion Models (e.g., OA-React-Diff), Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) [41]	Generate new, plausible transition state structures from scratch; can achieve RMSD deviations below 0.1 Ã… [41].	Emerging technology; complexities in training and validation.

Core Experimental Protocols in ML-Driven TS Search

A prominent ML workflow for predicting transition states, particularly for challenging bi-molecular reactions, involves converting three-dimensional molecular information into two-dimensional images for a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) to process [43]. The following protocol outlines this process:

Protocol 1: CNN- and Genetic Algorithm-Based TS Initial Guess Generation

• Dataset Compilation: An extensive dataset is built through quantum chemistry computations (e.g., using ωB97X or M08-HX functionals with pcseg-1 basis sets) focused on the reaction of interest. This dataset must include both successful and failed optimization results to provide sufficient positive and negative samples for the model [43].
• Bitmap Representation: Three-dimensional molecular structures and their geometries are converted into two-dimensional bitmap images. This visual representation embeds crucial chemical and geometric information, such as atomic types and interatomic distances [43].
• Model Training: A ResNet50 CNN architecture is trained on the generated bitmaps. The training process uses the images as input to classify or assess the quality of a structure as a potential transition state initial guess. The model is trained to minimize the validation loss, with techniques like early stopping used to prevent overfitting [43].
• Genetic Algorithm for Structure Evolution: A genetic algorithm is employed to explore the chemical space and generate new molecular configurations. The trained CNN model acts as the fitness function, scoring each generated structure. Structures with higher scores are considered more reasonable initial guesses for a transition state [43].
• Transition State Optimization: The highest-scoring structures from the genetic algorithm are used as initial guesses for subsequent, conventional quantum chemical transition state optimization (e.g., using DFT methods). This step verifies whether the ML-generated guess converges to a true saddle point on the potential energy surface [43].

This methodology has demonstrated remarkable success, achieving transition state optimization rates of 81.8% for hydrofluorocarbons and 80.9% for hydrofluoroethers in hydrogen abstraction reactions [43].

Machine Learning Approaches for Adsorption Energy Prediction

Navigating Complexity in Catalytic Materials

Adsorption energy prediction is crucial for screening and designing catalysts, especially for complex materials like high-entropy alloys (HEAs) and metal-organic frameworks (MOFs). The combinatorial explosion of possible configurations in these materials makes exhaustive DFT studies impossible [42]. ML strategies have been developed to efficiently map the relationship between a material's composition, structure, and its adsorption properties.

Table 2: ML Strategies for Adsorption Energy Prediction

Strategy	Description	Pros & Cons	Example Applications
Direct Prediction from Unrelaxed Structure	ML model predicts adsorption energy directly from the initial, unrelaxed atomic configuration.	Pros: Very fast; end-to-end prediction.\nCons: Accuracy depends on dataset quality; may miss relaxation effects [42].	Screening millions of HEA surface sites; predicting COâ‚‚ adsorption in MOFs [44] [42].
Iterative Prediction via ML Potentials	An ML-based interatomic potential (MLIP) is used to guide structural relaxation, and energy is calculated from the relaxed structure.	Pros: More physically accurate; accounts for atomistic relaxation.\nCons: More computationally intensive than direct prediction [42].	Relaxing surface-adsorbate structures in HEAs before energy evaluation [42].
Pretrained Model Fine-Tuning	Models pretrained on large-scale databases (e.g., Open Catalyst Project) are fine-tuned on a smaller, HEA-specific dataset.	Pros: Leverages transfer learning; effective even with limited HEA data.\nCons: Performance depends on domain similarity [42].	Extending model capability to novel, out-of-domain HEA systems [42].

Core Experimental Protocols in ML-Driven Adsorption Energy Prediction

The "direct prediction" strategy is a common and efficient workflow for high-throughput screening of adsorption energies across vast material spaces.

Protocol 2: Direct Adsorption Energy Prediction for High-Throughput Screening

• Dataset Curation: A dataset of adsorption energies is compiled from DFT calculations for a representative set of material configurations (e.g., different surface sites on HEAs or various MOF structures). For each entry, the atomic composition and structural features of the clean surface and the adsorbate are recorded [42].
• Feature Engineering: Meaningful descriptors (features) are defined for the ML model. These can be:
  • Handcrafted features: Such as elemental properties (electronegativity, atomic radius), chemical composition, and local environment descriptors (e.g., coordination numbers, orbital field matrices) [42].
  • Graph-based representations: The atomic system is treated as a graph, where nodes are atoms and edges are bonds or interatomic distances. This is used as input for Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) in an end-to-end learning framework [42].
• Model Training and Validation: An ML model (e.g., Random Forest, GNN, or Neural Network) is trained to map the input features to the DFT-calculated adsorption energy. The model is validated using techniques like k-fold cross-validation and tested on a hold-out dataset to ensure its predictive accuracy and generalization capability [44] [42].
• High-Throughput Prediction: The trained model is deployed to predict adsorption energies for thousands or even millions of material configurations that have not been computed by DFT. This allows for the rapid identification of promising candidate materials with desired adsorption properties [42].

This approach has been successfully applied to predict adsorption energies for gases like hydrogen and methane in MOFs, with models such as DeepSorption achieving high predictive accuracy (R² values of 0.98 for methane and 0.99 for hydrogen) [44].

Computational Tools and Benchmarking

The adoption of ML in computational chemistry is supported by the development of specialized software and benchmarking frameworks.

Table 3: Key Software and Tools for ML in TS and Adsorption Energy Prediction

Software/Package	Primary Function	Applicable Domains	Availability
AutoNEB [41]	Transition State Search	Organic & Organometallic Systems	Commercial
QST2/QST3 [41]	Transition State Search	Organic & Organometallic Systems	Commercial (Gaussian)
TSNet [41]	Transition State Prediction	Organic Molecular Systems	Open Source
OA-React-Diff [41]	Transition State Generation	Elementary Reactions	Open Source
CatBench [16]	Benchmarking ML Interatomic Potentials	Heterogeneous Catalysis, Adsorption Energy	Open Access
Orange [45]	Visual Programming for General ML	Data Mining, Education, Basic Chemical Tasks	Open Source

Frameworks like CatBench are critical for the rigorous evaluation and comparison of different ML interatomic potentials, ensuring their reliability and performance in predicting adsorption energies for catalytic applications [16].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

This section details the key computational "reagents" and resources essential for conducting research at the intersection of machine learning, transition state, and adsorption energy prediction.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Resources

Item Name	Function/Description	Relevance in Research
High-Quality TS & Adsorption Datasets	Curated datasets from quantum chemical calculations for training and validating ML models.	The performance of data-driven ML models is heavily dependent on the quality, size, and diversity of the training data [41] [42].
Graph Neural Network (GNN) Frameworks	Software libraries (e.g., PyTorch Geometric, DGL) designed for building and training GNNs.	Essential for end-to-end learning from atomic structures, as they naturally operate on graph representations of molecules and materials [41] [42].
Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) Architectures	Deep learning models (e.g., ResNet) designed to process data with a grid-like topology, such as images.	Used in novel approaches for transition state prediction where molecular structures are converted into 2D bitmap images [43].
Quantum Chemistry Software	Programs (e.g., Gaussian, ORCA, VASP) for performing DFT and other quantum mechanical calculations.	Used to generate the ground-truth data for training ML models and for the final validation of ML-predicted structures and energies [43] [7].
Genetic Algorithm Libraries	Optimization tools that use principles of natural selection to evolve solutions to a problem.	Employed to efficiently explore the high-dimensional chemical space and generate new candidate structures for transition states or adsorbate configurations [43].
Benchmarking Frameworks (e.g., CatBench)	Standardized tools and datasets for evaluating the performance of different ML models and potentials.	Critical for assessing model accuracy, transferability, and robustness, thereby guiding the selection of the best model for a given task [16].
4-Aza-Oleanolic acid methyl ester	4-Aza-Oleanolic Acid Methyl Ester|Triterpenic Derivative	4-Aza-Oleanolic acid methyl ester is a triterpenic derivative for research applications. This product is For Research Use Only, not for human use.
N-(Iodoacetamido)-Doxorubicin	N-(Iodoacetamido)-Doxorubicin, MF:C29H30INO12, MW:711.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Machine learning has undeniably revolutionized the prediction of transition states and adsorption energies, transforming these once-bottlenecked processes into rapid, high-throughput operations. From object-aware diffusion models that generate accurate TS guesses to graph neural networks that screen millions of potential adsorbent materials, ML techniques are providing researchers with an unprecedented ability to navigate complex chemical spaces. The core methodologies outlined in this guide—ranging from bitmap-based CNNs coupled with genetic algorithms to direct and iterative adsorption energy prediction strategies—represent the cutting edge of computational chemistry and materials science.

However, the field must overcome several challenges to fully realize its potential. The scarcity of high-quality, diverse datasets, particularly for transition states and complex materials like HEAs, remains a primary constraint [41] [42]. Future progress hinges on establishing comprehensive benchmarks, improving model generalizability, and fostering tighter integration between ML predictions and experimental validation. As these technical hurdles are addressed, the synergy between machine learning and quantum chemistry will continue to deepen, powerfully accelerating the rational design of novel catalysts, materials, and therapeutic agents.

Accurate prediction of adsorption and transition state energies is a cornerstone of modern computational research in catalysis and materials science. Density Functional Theory (DFT) has served as the foundational method for these calculations, providing essential insights into electronic structures and reaction pathways. However, its computational cost becomes prohibitive when exploring complex configurational spaces or achieving high accuracy for challenging systems like open-d-shell transition metals. This creates a significant bottleneck for research aiming to establish precise structure-property relationships. The central challenge lies in the fact that accurate, high-throughput screening of materials requires both the speed to evaluate thousands of structures and the fidelity to reliably predict energies often to within 1-2 kcal/mol.

Hybrid workflows that strategically combine machine learning (ML) potentials with targeted DFT calculations are emerging as a transformative solution. These protocols leverage the speed of ML surrogate models to navigate vast potential energy surfaces (PES), while reserving computationally expensive DFT for critical validations and final energy evaluations. This synergy creates a powerful feedback loop: DFT provides the accurate training data that builds reliable ML models, which in turn guide DFT to the most chemically relevant regions of the PES. This review details the construction, implementation, and application of these hybrid workflows, framing them within the critical context of adsorption and transition state energy research.

Theoretical Foundation: Bridging the Accuracy-Speed Divide

The development of hybrid workflows is driven by the complementary strengths and weaknesses of DFT and ML.

• The Accuracy of DFT: DFT remains the most widely used ab initio method for calculating ground-state electronic properties. It is capable of predicting key descriptors such as band gaps, adsorption energies, and reaction barriers. However, its accuracy is not uniform; for instance, standard functionals can struggle with van der Waals interactions, self-interaction error, and strongly correlated systems. For adsorption on transition metals, mean absolute errors for common functionals like BEEF-vdW and RPBE can be in the range of 2-3 kcal/mol, which is insufficient for precisely mapping energy landscapes [3]. More advanced functionals or post-DFT methods (e.g., CCSD(T)) offer higher accuracy but are often computationally intractable for periodic surface systems.

• The Speed of ML Potentials: Machine learning interatomic potentials (MLIPs), such as Gaussian Approximation Potentials (GAP), learn the relationship between atomic structure and potential energy from DFT data. Once trained, they can evaluate energies and forces several orders of magnitude faster than DFT. This enables exhaustive exploration of the PES, including long-time-scale molecular dynamics and global structure optimization, which are otherwise impossible [46] [47]. The limitation is that the ML model's accuracy and reliability are confined to the chemical space represented in its training data.

The hybrid approach, therefore, is not merely about replacing DFT with ML. It is about creating an intelligent, adaptive workflow where ML acts as a rapid pre-screening tool and a guide, ensuring that precious DFT resources are used only where they are most impactful. This is particularly crucial for studying "large, flexible molecules on catalyst surfaces," where the multitude of possible binding motifs creates a complex PES with many local minima that is difficult to navigate with DFT alone [46].

Core Methodologies and Workflow Architectures

Active Learning for Global Optimization

A primary application of hybrid workflows is the global optimization of adsorbate geometries on surfaces. The goal is to find the most stable adsorption configuration without being biased by initial guesses. The following workflow, exemplified by the GAP-driven minimization, outlines this automated process [46].

Diagram 1: GAP-Driven Global Optimization Workflow. This active learning cycle iteratively improves a machine-learned potential to efficiently locate the global minimum energy structure [46].

Table 1: Key Steps in the GAP-driven Global Optimization Workflow [46]

Step	Description	Key Method/Algorithm	Role in Workflow
1. Initialization	Generate a rough initial adsorbate geometry and place it randomly on the surface.	Merck Molecular Force Field (MMFF), RDKit	Provides a starting point that avoids unphysical atomic contacts.
2. Iterative Training	Perform DFT on a small number of structures to build/refine the GAP model.	Gaussian Process Regression, DFT Single-point	Creates a fast surrogate potential that learns from new data each cycle.
3. Configuration Search	Explore the potential energy surface to find low-energy minima.	Minima Hopping (MH)	Uses the GAP to efficiently and broadly sample the configurational space.
4. Active Learning	Select which new structures to add to the DFT training set.	Farthest Point Sampling (FPS), Stratified Random	Balances exploration of new regions with exploitation of low-energy minima.
5. Final Validation	Clustering and local DFT relaxation of the best candidates from the GAP search.	k-means Clustering, Local DFT Relaxation	Provides a DFT-accurate final ranking of the most promising structures.

This workflow minimizes human bias and the number of required DFT calculations by having the ML potential actively guide the search. The "on-the-fly" construction of the training set ensures the GAP model becomes increasingly accurate for the relevant regions of the PES, particularly around local and global minima [46].

A Multi-Fidelity Approach for High Accuracy

For the ultimate accuracy in adsorption energy predictions, a multi-fidelity approach can be employed. This strategy is designed to overcome the systematic errors that remain in even the most sophisticated semi-local DFT functionals. The following diagram illustrates this hierarchical method.

Diagram 2: Multi-Fidelity Workflow for High-Accuracy Energies. This protocol combines the scalability of periodic DFT with the precision of high-level quantum chemistry on focused cluster models [3].

The core of this method is a corrective scheme: E_corrected = E_DFT_periodic + (E_QC_cluster - E_DFT_cluster). The fundamental insight is that the local bond strength between the adsorbate and the surface is well-described by small cluster models, whereas the periodic calculation captures the extended band structure and coverage effects. The cluster calculation at a higher level of theory (e.g., CCSD(T)) corrects the local interaction energy from the DFT description. This approach has been benchmarked against experimental adsorption energies, achieving a mean absolute error as low as 2.2 kcal/mol for covalent and non-covalent adsorption, outperforming standard functionals [3].

Essential Tools and Implementation

The Scientist's Toolkit: Software and Codes

Implementing these hybrid workflows requires robust and flexible software infrastructure. The field has developed several key packages that enable high-throughput computation, workflow management, and the deployment of MLIPs.

Table 2: Essential Software Tools for Hybrid DFT/ML Workflows [46] [47] [48]

Tool Name	Type	Primary Function	Role in Hybrid Workflows
atomate2	Workflow Manager	Manages and automates high-throughput computational materials science workflows.	Provides modular, composable workflows that can integrate different DFT codes and MLIPs, enabling heterogeneous simulation procedures [48].
Gaussian Approximation Potentials (GAP)	Machine Learning Potential	Creates interatomic potentials using Gaussian process regression.	Used as a surrogate model in global optimization to rapidly explore potential energy surfaces [46].
VASP, Quantum ESPRESSO, ABINIT	DFT Calculator	Solves the Kohn-Sham equations to obtain electronic structure properties.	Provides the foundational, high-fidelity data for training MLIPs and for final energy evaluations [49] [48].
GOFEE / BEACON	Global Optimization Algorithm	Bayesian global optimization for structure prediction.	Employs surrogate models to efficiently find minimum energy structures with minimal DFT calculations [47].
ASE (Atomic Simulation Environment)	Python Library	Provides a versatile Python interface to set up, run, and analyze atomistic simulations.	Serves as a central hub, connecting different calculators, optimization algorithms, and ML tools [47].
Tetrazine-diazo-PEG4-biotin	Tetrazine-diazo-PEG4-biotin, MF:C45H57N11O9S, MW:928.1 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
(S,R,S)-AHPC-C3-NH2 hydrochloride	(S,R,S)-AHPC-C3-NH2 hydrochloride, MF:C26H38ClN5O4S, MW:552.1 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Modern workflow managers like atomate2 are critical as they standardize inputs and outputs, enabling interoperability between different DFT packages and MLIPs. This allows for "heterogeneous workflows," where, for example, a fast geometry relaxation is performed with an MLIP or a computationally efficient DFT code, followed by a single-point energy calculation using a more accurate but expensive DFT functional [48].

Quantitative Benchmarks and Performance

The efficacy of any computational method must be validated through rigorous benchmarking. For hybrid workflows, key performance metrics include computational speedup, data efficiency, and most importantly, the accuracy of final predicted energies.

Table 3: Benchmarking Hybrid Workflow Performance

Metric	Standard DFT	Hybrid ML/DFT Workflow	Impact and Significance
Adsorption Energy Error	MAE of ~2-3 kcal/mol for functionals like BEEF-vdW on transition metals [3].	MAE of ~2.2 kcal/mol achieved with cluster-corrected methods [3].	Enables more reliable predictions of catalytic activity and selectivity based on adsorption energy descriptors.
Barrier Height Error	Varies significantly with functional; BEEF-vdW shows good performance for some systems [3].	Corrected barriers can achieve MAE of ~1.1 kcal/mol [3].	Critical for accurately modeling reaction rates and kinetics in catalytic cycles.
Computational Cost for Geometry Search	"Brute-force" or "brute-intuition" screening requiring 100-1000s of DFT relaxations [46].	Reduction in required DFT calculations by an order of magnitude via active learning [46].	Makes exhaustive searches for complex adsorbates computationally feasible, reducing human bias.
System Size Scalability	O(N³) scaling limits studies to a few hundred atoms for routine calculations.	Near-linear scaling of MLIPs enables molecular dynamics of 10,000+ atoms [50].	Allows for modeling of complex surfaces, defects, and solid-liquid interfaces under realistic conditions.

Application in Catalysis Research: CO2 Hydrogenation

The theoretical framework of hybrid workflows finds direct application in tackling grand challenges in catalysis, such as the hydrogenation of CO₂ to methanol over Cu-based catalysts. This reaction involves a network of intermediates (e.g., HCOO, H₃COH) adsorbing on different surfaces like Cu(111) and Cu(211). A significant challenge is the "pressure gap," where conventional DFT calculations at 0 K in a vacuum fail to replicate industrially relevant high-pressure conditions [51].

To bridge this gap, a grand potential theory has been developed, which is a form of hybrid functional theory. It combines electronic DFT (to model the chemical bonds of adsorbed intermediates) with classical DFT (to model the thermodynamic environment of the surrounding gas phase). This workflow allows for the calculation of reaction energy landscapes under realistic temperature and pressure (e.g., 503 K and 60 bar). The results reveal that the hydrogenation rate of key intermediates like HCOO* can vary by orders of magnitude with reaction conditions, and they help clarify longstanding controversies about reaction pathways on different Cu facets [51]. This approach demonstrates how integrating different computational models within a structured workflow provides insights that are inaccessible to any single method alone.

Hybrid workflows that synergistically combine machine learning potentials with density functional theory represent a paradigm shift in computational surface science. By delegating the task of extensive configurational sampling to fast, data-driven surrogate models, these workflows reserve costly ab initio calculations for final validation and high-fidelity energy computations. This division of labor successfully addresses the dual demands of speed and accuracy, making the precise computational study of complex, realistic systems feasible.

The future of these workflows is bright and points toward several key developments. There is a strong push for increased automation and robustness in software infrastructures like atomate2, which will make these powerful tools accessible to a broader community of researchers [48]. Furthermore, the integration of generative AI for inverse design is emerging as a powerful frontier, where models do not just predict properties but propose entirely new catalyst structures with desired performance characteristics [50]. Finally, overcoming the scarcity of large, high-quality datasets for specific chemical domains remains a challenge, underscoring the need for community-wide efforts to build comprehensive databases. As these trends converge, hybrid DFT/ML workflows will solidify their role as an indispensable tool for accelerating the discovery of next-generation materials and catalysts, firmly rooted in quantum-mechanical accuracy.

The study of adsorption energy and transition state energy relationships provides a fundamental framework for advancing technologies across seemingly disparate fields. In both catalyst screening and drug delivery system optimization, the interactions at interfaces—whether between a reactant and a catalyst surface or an Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) and its carrier—govern system performance and efficacy. This whitepaper examines these two application areas through the lens of adsorption energetics, demonstrating how principles of energy quantification, prediction, and optimization enable technological breakthroughs. For catalyst development, adsorption energy directly dictates catalytic activity and selectivity according to the Sabatier principle, which posits that optimal catalysts bind reactants neither too strongly nor too weakly [14]. Similarly, in advanced drug delivery, the adsorption and binding energies between drug molecules and their carriers critically influence loading capacity, release kinetics, and targeting efficiency [52] [53]. By exploring recent case studies and methodological advances in both fields, this guide provides researchers with a unified perspective on how energy relationship studies drive innovation.

Catalyst Screening: Computational and Experimental Approaches

Fundamental Principles and Energetic Relationships

In catalysis, adsorption energy ((E_{ads})) is defined as the energy released or required when an adsorbate (e.g., a reactant molecule or atom) attaches to a catalyst surface. This parameter serves as a key descriptor for predicting catalytic activity because the transition state energies of electrochemical reactions are linearly correlated with adsorption energies [14]. Computational studies have established that adsorption energies of atomic species (C, H, O) can proxy the activities of more complex reactions, including COâ‚‚ reduction (via C-adsorption), hydrogen evolution/oxidation (via H-adsorption), and oxygen reduction/evolution reactions (via O-adsorption) [14].

The d-band model provides a theoretical foundation for understanding adsorption energy trends on transition metal surfaces. This model correlates the center of the d-band ((d_{center})) relative to the Fermi level with adsorption strength: an upward shift of the d-band center generally strengthens adsorbate binding due to enhanced hybridization between adsorbate orbitals and metal d-states [14]. This relationship enables predictions of catalytic performance and guides alloy development.

Case Study: High-Throughput Screening of Bimetallic Alloys

Table 1: Feature Categories for Machine Learning-Based Adsorption Energy Prediction [14]

Feature Group	Description	Example Features	Computational Cost
Elemental	Properties derived from atomic identity	Electronegativity, valence electron count, ionization energy, sublimation energy	Low
Structural	Properties based on lattice arrangement	Coordination number, ensemble atom count, lattice constant	Medium
Electronic	Properties derived from electronic structure	d-band center, d-band width, density of states at Fermi level, work function	High

Experimental Protocol: Interpretable ML-DFT Workflow

• Dataset Curation: Access adsorption energies for 26 monometallic and 400 bimetallic fcc(111) transition metal surfaces from databases like Catalysis-hub.org. The dataset should include 1,393 C-adsorption energies, 1,897 H-adsorption energies, and 1,533 O-adsorption energies [14].

• Feature Calculation: Compute fourteen elemental, structural, and electronic features for each data point:

  • Calculate electronic features (d-band center, work function) using Density Functional Theory (DFT) with appropriate exchange-correlation functionals.
  • Obtain elemental features from established databases and literature values.
  • Compute structural features through site-specific calculations considering local coordination environments [14].

• Model Training and Validation:

  • Implement multiple machine learning regression algorithms, including Random Forest Regression (RFR), Gaussian Process Regression (GPR), and Artificial Neural Networks (ANN).
  • Use k-fold cross-validation to assess model performance, with target accuracy metrics typically achieving R² > 0.9 for robust predictions [14].
  • Apply feature selection techniques to identify the most relevant descriptors and prevent overfitting.

• Model Interpretation:

  • Employ model-agnostic interpretation methods such as Permutation Feature Importance (PFI) and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) to quantify feature contributions.
  • Validate identified trends against established theoretical models (e.g., d-band model, Friedel model) to ensure physical plausibility [14].

• Experimental Validation:

  • Synthesize predicted optimal catalysts (e.g., bimetallic alloys with moderate C-adsorption energies for COâ‚‚RR) using physical vapor deposition or wet chemistry methods.
  • Characterize catalyst performance in relevant electrochemical systems (e.g., H-cell or flow reactor for COâ‚‚RR) measuring key metrics such as Faradaic efficiency, overpotential, and current density.

Figure 1: Computational Catalyst Screening Workflow

Case Study: Adsorption Energy Trends in 2D Transition Metal Dichalcogenides

Beyond traditional transition metal catalysts, two-dimensional (2D) materials like transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDs: MoSâ‚‚, MoSeâ‚‚, WSâ‚‚, WSeâ‚‚) exhibit unique adsorption properties relevant to neuromorphic computing and memory applications. Studies exploring metal adatom adsorption on chalcogen vacancies in TMDs have revealed consistent periodic trends across material systems [7].

Table 2: Adsorption Energies of Selected Transition Metals on MoSâ‚‚ with Bader Charge Transfer [7]

Adsorbate	Adsorption Energy (eV)	Bader Charge Transfer (	e	)
Au	-2.64	~0.5
Ag	-2.19	~0.3
Cu	-2.96	~0.6
Sc	-5.57	~1.2
Y	-5.83	~1.3
Ti	-6.13	~1.1

Experimental Protocol: TMD Adsorption Energy Calculations

• Surface Modeling: Construct monolayer TMD models (e.g., 4×4 or 5×5 supercells of MoSâ‚‚) with a single chalcogen vacancy using atomic visualization software.

• DFT Calculations: Perform spin-polarized DFT calculations with:

  • Plane-wave basis sets and projector augmented-wave (PAW) pseudopotentials.
  • van der Waals corrections to account for dispersion forces.
  • Sufficient vacuum spacing (≥15 Ã…) to prevent periodic interactions.
  • Gamma-centered k-point grids for Brillouin zone sampling.

• Adsorption Energy Determination: Calculate adsorption energy using: [ E{ads} = E{TMD+adsorbate} - (E{TMD} + E{adsorbate}) ] where (E{TMD+adsorbate}) is the energy of the TMD with adsorbed metal, (E{TMD}) is the energy of the TMD with vacancy, and (E_{adsorbate}) is the energy of an isolated metal atom [7].

• Electronic Structure Analysis:

  • Perform Bader charge analysis to quantify electron transfer upon adsorption.
  • Calculate projected density of states (PDOS) to determine d-band center positions and hybridization effects.

Drug Delivery System Optimization: Energetics in Formulation Design

Fundamental Principles and Energetic Relationships

In drug delivery systems, adsorption energy and related interaction energies govern multiple aspects of system performance. These include: (1) API-carrier binding affinity, which determines drug loading capacity; (2) interaction energies between permeation enhancers and skin lipids, affecting transdermal delivery; and (3) targeting moiety-receptor binding specificities [54] [52]. Unlike heterogeneous catalysis where adsorption is typically measured at solid-gas interfaces, drug delivery systems involve complex interfaces in aqueous environments, including solid-liquid, liquid-liquid, and biological membrane interfaces.

Case Study: AI-Driven Optimization of Topical Drug Formulations

The global pharmaceutical drug delivery market is projected to reach USD 2546.0 billion by 2029, driving urgent needs for efficient formulation development [52]. Artificial intelligence (AI) approaches now enable prediction of formulation parameters based on molecular properties and interaction energies, significantly accelerating development timelines.

Experimental Protocol: AI-Guided Formulation Development

• Dataset Preparation:

  • Compile a comprehensive formulation dataset containing ≥500 entries covering ≥10 drugs and all significant excipients.
  • Include critical process parameters (e.g., mixing speed, temperature, solvent composition) and resulting performance metrics (e.g., bioavailability, release rate, stability) [52].

• Molecular Representation:

  • Generate appropriate molecular representations for both APIs and excipients, including molecular descriptors, fingerprints, or graph-based representations.
  • For complex biologics, incorporate sequence and structural features.

• Model Implementation:

  • Apply suitable machine learning algorithms (e.g., random forest, gradient boosting, or graph neural networks) trained to predict formulation outcomes.
  • Implement the "Rule of Five" (Ro5) principles for reliable AI applications in drug delivery, ensuring dataset adequacy, appropriate representations, and model interpretability [52].

• Experimental Validation:

  • Prepare lead formulations identified by AI screening using standard pharmaceutical techniques (e.g., solvent evaporation, high-pressure homogenization).
  • Characterize formulations for critical quality attributes including particle size, zeta potential, drug loading efficiency, and in vitro release profile.

Figure 2: AI-Driven Formulation Development Workflow

Case Study: Advanced Penetration Enhancers for Transdermal Delivery

Topical drug delivery is rapidly evolving with advanced penetration enhancers that modify the interaction energies between drug molecules and the skin's stratum corneum. These enhancers function by temporarily disrupting the highly ordered lipid structure, reducing the adsorption energy barrier to drug permeation [54].

Table 3: Advanced Penetration Enhancement Technologies [54]

Technology Category	Representative Actives	Mechanism of Action	Impact on Energetics
Chemical Enhancers	Sulfoxides, fatty alcohols, pyrrolidones	Lipid bilayer disruption, protein conformation changes	Reduces adsorption energy barrier at skin interface
Physical Methods	Microneedles, sonophoresis, electroporation	Creating transient microchannels in stratum corneum	Bypasses primary energy barrier through physical pathways
Nanoemulsions	Oil-water systems with surfactants	Enhancing drug solubility and partitioning into skin	Improves thermodynamic activity, reduces transfer energy
Stimuli-Responsive Systems	Temperature-, pH-, or enzyme-sensitive polymers	On-demand drug release based on skin conditions	Modulates interaction energies in response to biological triggers

Experimental Protocol: Evaluating Penetration Enhancer Efficacy

• Formulation Preparation:

  • Incorporate penetration enhancers (e.g., 1-5% w/w) into appropriate vehicle (gel, cream, or solution).
  • Include fluorescent or radiolabeled tracer molecules to quantify penetration.

• In Vitro Permeation Testing:

  • Use Franz diffusion cells with excised human or porcine skin.
  • Apply formulation to donor compartment and collect samples from receptor compartment at predetermined time intervals.
  • Maintain sink conditions and temperature control (32°C) throughout experiment.

• Data Analysis:

  • Calculate cumulative drug permeation and flux at steady state.
  • Determine enhancement ratio (ER) relative to control formulation: [ ER = \frac{Flux{with\;enhancer}}{Flux{control}} ]
  • Perform statistical analysis to identify significant enhancements.

• Skin Interaction Studies:

  • Use Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) to assess lipid bilayer disruption.
  • Employ thermal analysis (DSC) to detect changes in skin protein denaturation temperature.
  • Perform confocal microscopy to visualize penetration pathways.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 4: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Adsorption Energy and Delivery System Studies

Reagent/Material	Function/Application	Example Uses	Key Suppliers/Platforms
High-Throughput Screening Systems	Automated catalyst testing and data collection	Parallel evaluation of catalyst libraries under identical conditions	H.E.L Group, Buchi, Parr Instrument Company, Mettler Toledo [55]
Microreactor Platforms	Small-volume reactions with precise temperature and pressure control	High-throughput screening of reaction conditions with minimal reagent use	Buchi microreactor systems [56]
DFT Software Packages	First-principles calculation of adsorption energies and electronic properties	Predicting adsorption energies on novel catalyst surfaces	VASP, Quantum ESPRESSO, Gaussian [7] [14]
Stimuli-Responsive Polymers	Enable controlled drug release in response to biological triggers	pH- or temperature-sensitive topical formulations for on-demand delivery	Various specialty chemical suppliers [54]
Advanced Penetration Enhancers	Modify skin barrier properties to improve drug permeation	Transdermal delivery of hydrophilic molecules and macromolecules	Various pharmaceutical excipient suppliers [54]
Uni-Mol Framework	Pretrained molecular representation for reaction prediction	Screening peptide catalysts for asymmetric synthesis	Open-source computational tools [57]
Benzoquinonium dibromide	Benzoquinonium dibromide, MF:C34H50Br2N4O2, MW:706.6 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
Fmoc-N-amido-PEG36-Boc	Fmoc-N-amido-PEG36-Boc, MF:C94H169NO40, MW:1953.3 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

The systematic investigation of adsorption energy and transition state energy relationships continues to enable advances in both catalyst screening and drug delivery system optimization. In catalysis, the integration of DFT with interpretable machine learning has created powerful prediction frameworks that accelerate the discovery of novel materials while providing physical insights into structure-property relationships [14]. The global catalyst screening system market, valued at USD 1.30 billion in 2025 and projected to reach USD 2.05 billion by 2032, reflects the growing importance of these technologies [55]. Similarly, in pharmaceutical development, AI-driven approaches that account for molecular interaction energies are reducing reliance on trial-and-error formulation methods, potentially shortening development timelines and improving therapeutic outcomes [52].

Future advancements in both fields will likely involve increased integration of multi-scale modeling approaches, combining quantum mechanical calculations of adsorption energies with mesoscale modeling of transport phenomena and reaction-diffusion processes. The continued development of more accurate force fields for molecular dynamics simulations will further enhance our ability to predict interaction energies in complex biological environments. For researchers exploring these frontiers, the methodological frameworks and case studies presented in this technical guide provide both practical protocols and conceptual foundations for advancing adsorption energy research in applied contexts.

Overcoming Computational Hurdles: Data, Convergence, and Model Selection

Addressing Data Scarcity and Quality in Transition State Datasets

The accurate prediction of transition state (TS) structures and their corresponding energies is a cornerstone of computational chemistry, enabling the understanding of reaction kinetics and catalyst design. Within the broader context of adsorption energy and transition state energy relationships, the reliability of computational models is fundamentally constrained by the availability of high-quality, chemically diverse training data. Data scarcity and quality issues represent a critical bottleneck, as Transition State (TS) structures, being saddle points on the potential energy surface, require complex quantum chemical calculations that are orders of magnitude more expensive than calculations for equilibrium molecular properties [41] [58]. This whitepaper provides an in-depth technical analysis of the challenges associated with TS datasets and details advanced experimental and computational protocols designed to overcome them, with a particular focus on implications for adsorption energy research.

The Core Challenge: Data Scarcity and Quality

The development of machine learning (ML) models for predicting reaction properties is severely hampered by two interrelated factors: the scarcity of large-scale TS databases and significant quality issues in existing data.

Scarcity and Lack of Diversity: Unlike molecular property databases, which can contain hundreds of thousands to billions of entries, existing TS datasets are comparatively small. As of 2023, one of the most extensive and chemically diverse datasets, the Reaction Graph Depth 1 (RGD1), contained 176,992 reactions with validated TSs [58]. This scarcity is compounded by a lack of chemical diversity; many datasets are limited to specific reaction types, such as unimolecular reactions, and cannot be directly applied to the majority of chemical processes, which are bi-molecular [43]. For instance, a study on hydrogen abstraction reactions by hydroxyl radicals—critical for atmospheric chemistry—highlighted the absence of ML models or databases with sufficient trainable data for these systems [43].

Data Quality and Conformational Variance: The quality of a TS dataset is as critical as its size. Obtaining reliable TS structures requires highly accurate descriptions of subtle electronic changes, necessitating high levels of computational accuracy [41]. Furthermore, a frequently overlooked aspect is conformational sampling. A study characterizing 124 unimolecular decomposition reactions found an average deviation of 5.2 kcal/mol across different TS conformations, indicating that a single TS structure per reaction is insufficient for accurate energy predictions [58]. The RGD1 dataset, which includes multiple TSs for 33,032 reactions, allows for the assessment of these conformational errors [58].

Table 1: Overview of Select Transition State and Adsorption Energy Datasets

Dataset Name	Focus/Content	Size	Key Features and Challenges
RGD1 [58]	Organic reactions (C, H, O, N)	176,992 reactions	Includes conformational diversity; ~1.3 million initial conformers were filtered to validated TSs
OC20-Dense [6]	Adsorbate-surface configurations	~1000 adsorbate-surface comb.	Dense sampling for adsorption energy global minimum; addresses configuration sampling gap
HFC/HFE Dataset [43]	Hydrogen abstraction by •OH	Not specified	Built to address data absence for a specific, critical bi-molecular reaction class
CE39/ADS41 [25]	Adsorption energies on TM surfaces	39-41 data points	Small, curated experimental benchmark; highlights functional accuracy challenges

Experimental Protocols for Dataset Generation

Generating a comprehensive and reliable TS dataset is a multi-step process that requires careful planning and execution. The following protocols, derived from recent large-scale efforts, provide a framework for addressing data scarcity.

Protocol 1: Comprehensive Reaction Enumeration and TS Validation (RGD1)

This protocol outlines the workflow used to create the RGD1 dataset, which is designed for maximum chemical diversity [58].

• Reactant Curation: Begin by curating a large set of neutral, closed-shell molecules from a source like PubChem. The RGD1 study used 413,519 C, H, O, N-containing molecules with up to 10 heavy (non-hydrogen) atoms. Structures should be canonicalized, and salts, mixtures, inorganics, and organometallics should be removed.
• Reaction Enumeration: Apply a graphically-defined elementary reaction step (ERS) to each reactant to systematically explore reaction space. The "break two bonds, form two bonds" (b2f2) rule is a common and effective ERS for organic systems. This step can generate hundreds of thousands of potential reactions.
• Model Reaction Generation: To manage the combinatorial explosion and prioritize distinct reactions, convert enumerated reactions into "model reactions." This involves truncating the parent reaction at a specified graphical depth (e.g., one bond away from the reacting atoms) and hydrogenating the truncated structure to preserve the hybridization of the reacting atoms. This reduces redundancy while retaining essential chemical information.
• Conformational Sampling: For each unique reactant-product pair, generate multiple three-dimensional molecular conformations. The number of conformers depends on the degrees of freedom. In the RGD1 study, this step produced 1,339,887 total reaction conformations from the 126,857 distinct reactions.
• Transition State Localization: Use an automated reaction prediction package (e.g., Yet Another Reaction Program (YARP)) to localize transition states for all reaction conformers. This is computationally intensive and is typically performed at a suitable level of theory, such as B3LYP-D3/TZVP.
• Validation and Filtering: Filter the localized TSs through a series of checks to ensure they correspond to the intended reaction connecting the specified reactants and products. This includes verifying the correct number of imaginary frequencies (one) and following the intrinsic reaction coordinate (IRC). Remove duplicated conformations to produce the final, validated dataset.

Protocol 2: Bitmap-Based ML for Challenging Bi-molecular Reactions

This protocol describes a specialized machine learning approach for systems where data is extremely scarce, such as the hydrogen abstraction from hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and hydrofluoroethers (HFEs) by hydroxyl radicals [43].

• Dataset Compilation: First, compile an extensive, focused dataset through targeted quantum chemistry computations on the specific bi-molecular reactions of interest. This addresses the initial data void.
• Bitmap Representation: Convert three-dimensional geometric information of the molecular structures involved in the reaction into two-dimensional bitmap images. The bitmap generation logic can be adjusted to embed physical knowledge and features specific to the reaction type.
• Model Training: Train a supervised learning model, such as a ResNet50 convolutional neural network (CNN), using the bitmap representations. The model should be trained to classify or score initial structural guesses based on their quality, effectively learning from both successful and failed optimization results.
• Genetic Algorithm for Structure Generation: Employ a genetic algorithm to evolve a population of initial guess structures for a new reaction. The trained CNN model acts as the fitness function, scoring each generated structure. The algorithm progressively selects and mutates high-scoring structures.
• Transition State Optimization: Take the highest-scoring structures from the genetic algorithm and use them as initial guesses for a full quantum chemical TS optimization (e.g., using methods like NEB or dimer). This workflow achieved verified success rates of 81.8% for HFCs and 80.9% for HFEs [43].

The following workflow diagram illustrates the hybrid machine learning and quantum chemistry approach for generating transition state guesses.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents and Solutions

This section details the essential computational tools, methods, and datasets that form the modern researcher's toolkit for tackling TS and adsorption energy challenges.

Table 2: Essential Computational Tools for TS and Adsorption Energy Research

Tool/Resource	Type	Function and Application
RGD1 Dataset [58]	Dataset	Provides 176,992 organic reactions with TSs, energies, and geometries; a benchmark for ML model training.
OC20-Dense Dataset [6]	Dataset	Enables benchmarking of adsorption energy search algorithms via dense configuration sampling.
Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) [43]	ML Model	Scores quality of initial TS guesses from bitmap representations of molecular structures.
Genetic Algorithm [43]	Algorithm	Explores chemical space to generate high-quality initial structures for TS optimization.
Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) [41] [6]	ML Model	Predicts molecular and reaction properties; used in hybrid ML-DFT workflows for adsorption energy.
AdsorbML Algorithm [6]	Hybrid Workflow	Uses ML potentials for fast config relaxation & DFT for refinement; achieves ~2000x speedup.
B3LYP, ωB97X, M08-HX [43] [25]	DFT Functional	Quantum chemistry methods for TS optimization and energy calculation; accuracy varies by system.
Yet Another Reaction Program (YARP) [58]	Software	Automated reaction prediction package for TS localization and reaction path analysis.
cIAP1 Ligand-Linker Conjugates 9	cIAP1 Ligand-Linker Conjugates 9, MF:C37H48N4O7, MW:660.8 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Interplay with Adsorption Energy Predictions

The challenges and solutions for TS datasets are deeply intertwined with the computational catalysis community's efforts to accurately predict adsorption energies, a critical descriptor in heterogeneous catalysis [7] [6] [25]. The AdsorbML algorithm, for instance, directly addresses the analogous problem of finding the global minimum energy configuration for an adsorbate on a catalyst surface, a task that traditionally relies on heuristic methods and researcher intuition [6]. This workflow, which involves sampling numerous adsorbate-surface configurations, mirrors the conformational sampling required for robust TS prediction.

Furthermore, the accuracy of adsorption energies calculated with Density Functional Theory (DFT) is a persistent issue, with different functionals performing well for specific types of interactions (e.g., covalent vs. dispersion) but struggling to deliver balanced accuracy [25]. This directly impacts the reliability of TS barriers, as the theoretical description of barriers often closely follows the description of the final, chemisorbed states [25]. Therefore, strategies developed to improve adsorption energies, such as hybrid-DFT/cluster correction schemes [25], have a direct pathway to enhancing the accuracy of computed activation barriers. The relationship between data quality, model accuracy, and computational cost is a universal theme across both fields, as illustrated by the following workflow for adsorption energy calculation, which parallels the TS prediction process.

Addressing data scarcity and quality in transition state datasets is not merely a data curation challenge but a fundamental prerequisite for advancing computational research in catalysis and materials science. The development of large-scale, chemically diverse, and conformationally rich datasets like RGD1, coupled with innovative machine learning protocols that leverage bitmap representations and genetic algorithms, provides a robust pathway forward. These efforts are complemented by parallel advances in the adsorption energy community, where hybrid ML-DFT workflows and benchmark datasets are setting new standards for accuracy and efficiency. By adopting and further refining the detailed experimental protocols and tools outlined in this guide, researchers can systematically overcome data limitations, leading to more predictive models of reaction kinetics and catalyst performance.

Convergence Challenges in Saddle Point Search Algorithms and Optimization Techniques

In high-dimensional optimization problems, particularly those found in computational chemistry and materials science, saddle points represent a significant challenge for convergence. These points are characterized by a flat region in some directions of the optimization landscape while being steep in others, causing optimization algorithms to become trapped in non-optimal regions [59]. As the dimensionality of the problem increases, the prevalence of saddle points grows exponentially, making efficient escape and convergence strategies essential for practical research applications [59]. In the context of adsorption energy and transition state research, accurately locating and characterizing these saddle points is crucial for understanding reaction pathways, catalytic processes, and molecular interactions.

The relationship between adsorption energy and transition state energy represents a fundamental aspect of surface science and heterogeneous catalysis. Density Functional Theory (DFT) predictions of binding energies and reaction barriers provide invaluable data for analyzing chemical transformations, though achieving high accuracy requires careful consideration of band structure, coverage effects, and local bond strength in both covalent and non-covalent interactions [3]. The convergence challenges in saddle point search algorithms directly impact the reliability of these predictions and consequently affect the interpretation of experimental results in adsorption energy research.

Fundamental Convergence Challenges

High-Dimensional Complexity

In high-dimensional non-convex optimization landscapes, the exponential growth of saddle points with increasing dimensionality presents a fundamental challenge [59]. Traditional optimization methods, including gradient descent, frequently become trapped at these points due to the flatness of the loss surface, which impedes the algorithm's ability to determine appropriate direction and step size [59]. This problem is particularly pronounced in computational chemistry applications where potential energy surfaces (PES) must be navigated to identify optimal adsorption sites and transition states [60].

The complex topology of these high-dimensional spaces means that saddle points often outnumber local minima, creating a landscape where optimization algorithms are more likely to become stuck in suboptimal regions rather than converging to true minima [61]. This challenge is compounded in adsorption energy calculations, where the accuracy of transition state identification directly impacts predicted reaction rates and pathways [3].

Gradient and Hessian Evaluation Limitations

Traditional saddle-search algorithms rely heavily on exact derivative and Hessian evaluations, which become computationally prohibitive in high-dimensional spaces [61]. The computational expense of these evaluations increases substantially with system complexity, creating a significant bottleneck for practical applications in materials science and drug development [61]. For transition state theory applications, this limitation directly impacts the feasibility of studying complex molecular systems with sufficient accuracy.

Numerical instability in Hessian matrix analysis further complicates saddle point identification, particularly in regions where the curvature information is noisy or incomplete [59]. This instability can lead to misidentification of saddle points and false convergence, ultimately compromising the reliability of adsorption energy predictions and transition state characterizations [3].

Basin Entrapment and Slow Convergence

Optimization algorithms frequently exhibit slow convergence rates in flat regions surrounding saddle points, where gradient magnitudes become vanishingly small [59]. This phenomenon, known as basin entrapment, is particularly problematic in adsorption energy calculations where precise energy differences determine the stability of molecular configurations [60]. The inability to efficiently escape these flat regions leads to excessive computational requirements and limited practical utility for large-scale systems.

The stochastic nature of many modern optimization approaches introduces additional convergence challenges, as random perturbations may insufficiently direct the search toward productive regions of the optimization landscape [61]. This problem is exacerbated in complex molecular systems where multiple reaction pathways and adsorption configurations compete, creating a rugged energy landscape with numerous shallow minima and saddle points [60].

Table: Primary Convergence Challenges in Saddle Point Optimization

Challenge Category	Specific Limitations	Impact on Adsorption Energy Research
Dimensional Complexity	Exponential growth of saddle points with dimension	Reduced reliability in transition state identification
Computational Burden	High cost of exact Hessian evaluations	Limited system size and complexity in DFT studies
Numerical Instability	Noisy curvature information in flat regions	Inaccurate reaction barrier predictions
Basin Entrapment	Slow convergence in flat regions	Incomplete exploration of configuration space

Modern Optimization Techniques and Algorithms

Stochastic Saddle-Point Search Algorithms

Recent advances in stochastic optimization have yielded promising approaches for addressing saddle point convergence challenges. The stochastic saddle-search algorithm circumvents traditional limitations by employing approximate Hessian information through stochastic eigenvector-search methods, significantly reducing computational requirements while maintaining convergence guarantees [61]. This approach combines stochastic gradient updates with reflections in approximate unstable directions to efficiently advance toward saddle points, offering practical improvements for high-dimensional problems encountered in adsorption energy research [61].

The convergence properties of these stochastic methods have been rigorously established, with theoretical guarantees ensuring high-probability identification of saddle points when initial points are sufficiently close to the target [61]. For adsorption energy applications, this mathematical foundation provides confidence in the reliability of located transition states and reaction pathways, which is essential for predictive computational modeling in catalysis and drug design [62].

Gradient Perturbation Methods

Stochastic gradient perturbation represents another powerful technique for escaping saddle points by introducing carefully calibrated noise into optimization updates [59]. This injected randomness prevents premature convergence in shallow local minima and flat saddle point regions, enabling more thorough exploration of the optimization landscape [59]. In the context of transition state theory, this enhanced exploration capability directly translates to more comprehensive mapping of reaction coordinates and adsorption configurations.

The dynamic nature of gradient perturbation methods allows optimization algorithms to navigate complex energy landscapes without becoming trapped in suboptimal regions, a critical advantage when studying heterogeneous catalytic systems with multiple competing reaction pathways [59]. The balance between exploration and convergence is particularly important for adsorption energy calculations, where global landscape characteristics inform understanding of catalytic activity and selectivity [3].

Adaptive Learning Rate Strategies

Adaptive learning rate methods address convergence challenges by dynamically adjusting step sizes based on previous gradient information, allowing algorithms to respond more effectively to different regions of the optimization landscape [59]. This adaptability is crucial for navigating the variable curvature characteristics surrounding saddle points, where fixed learning rates often lead to oscillatory behavior or stagnation [59]. For transition state searches, appropriate step size selection directly impacts the efficiency of locating first-order saddle points on potential energy surfaces.

These adaptive approaches enable more effective navigation around saddle points by recognizing and responding to local landscape characteristics, such as regions of high curvature or near-flat plateaus [59]. The implementation of adaptive learning rates has demonstrated significant improvements in convergence speed and stability, particularly in high-dimensional scenarios common to computational chemistry applications [59].

Hessian Matrix Analysis and Curvature Exploitation

Hessian matrix analysis provides critical curvature information that enables identification and characterization of saddle points through eigenvalue analysis [59]. By examining the spectral properties of the Hessian, optimization algorithms can distinguish between directions of positive and negative curvature, guiding efficient escape from saddle regions [59]. This analytical approach is particularly valuable in transition state theory, where the curvature of the potential energy surface determines the stability of molecular configurations.

The integration of stochastic Hessian approximations has made curvature analysis computationally feasible for large-scale systems, enabling practical application to complex adsorption energy problems [61]. By focusing computational resources on the most relevant curvature information, these methods maintain the analytical power of full Hessian analysis while avoiding prohibitive computational costs [61].

Table: Comparison of Modern Saddle Point Optimization Techniques

Technique	Key Mechanism	Advantages	Limitations
Stochastic Saddle-Search	Stochastic eigenvector approximation	Reduced computational cost, theoretical convergence guarantees	Requires careful parameter tuning
Gradient Perturbation	Injected noise in updates	Escapes shallow minima, enhances exploration	May slow convergence in smooth regions
Adaptive Learning Rates	Dynamic step size adjustment	Responds to local landscape geometry	Increased complexity in implementation
Hessian Analysis	Eigenvalue decomposition of curvature	Precise saddle point identification	Computational cost for exact evaluation

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Protocol: Stochastic Saddle-Point Search Implementation

The stochastic saddle-search algorithm provides a practical framework for addressing convergence challenges in high-dimensional optimization problems [61]. The following protocol outlines the key steps for implementation:

Initialization Phase: Begin by selecting an initial point x₀ in the configuration space and setting algorithm parameters, including step size sequence {ηₙ}, batch size for stochastic gradient estimates, and convergence tolerance ε. For adsorption energy applications, initial points may be selected based on chemical intuition or preliminary sampling of the potential energy surface [61].

Stochastic Eigenvector Search: At each iteration n, approximate the smallest eigenvector of the Hessian using a stochastic power method or Lanczos iteration. This step identifies the unstable direction at the current point without requiring full Hessian evaluation. The stochastic Hessian-vector products can be estimated using finite differences of stochastic gradients [61].

Gradient Update with Reflection: Compute a stochastic gradient estimate ĝₙ at the current point xₙ. Apply the update: xₙ₊₁ = xₙ - ηₙ(ĝₙ - 2⟨ĝₙ, vₙ⟩vₙ), where vₙ is the approximated unstable direction. The reflection term -2⟨ĝₙ, vₙ⟩vₙ ensures movement away from saddle points along unstable directions [61].

Convergence Checking: Monitor the gradient magnitude and Hessian minimum eigenvalue to assess convergence. The algorithm terminates when both ‖ĝₙ‖ < ε and λ_min(Ĥₙ) > -ε, indicating arrival at an approximate second-order stationary point [61].

Validation: For adsorption energy applications, validate identified saddle points through frequency calculations confirming exactly one imaginary frequency, verifying the transition state character [3].

Protocol: AUGUR Optimization Pipeline for Adsorption Sites

The AUGUR (Aware of Uncertainty Graph Unit Regression) pipeline represents a specialized approach for identifying optimal adsorption sites, combining graph neural networks with Bayesian optimization [60]:

System Representation: Encode the cluster-adsorbate system as a graph where nodes represent atoms and edges represent connections based on spatial proximity or chemical bonding. This representation ensures symmetry, rotation, and translation invariance, which is crucial for consistent energy predictions across different configurations [60].

Surrogate Model Construction: Train a graph neural network (GNN) to process the system representation, followed by a Gaussian process (GP) model to generate energy predictions with uncertainty quantification. The GNN captures local chemical environments, while the GP provides probabilistic predictions essential for Bayesian optimization [60].

Bayesian Optimization Loop: Initialize with a small set of DFT calculations at diverse configurations. Then iteratively: (1) Use the surrogate model to predict energies and uncertainties across unexplored configurations; (2) Select the most promising candidate points using an acquisition function (e.g., expected improvement); (3) Perform DFT calculations at selected points; (4) Update the surrogate model with new data [60].

Convergence and Validation: Monitor the progression of best-found adsorption energy across iterations. Convergence is achieved when successive iterations fail to yield significant improvement or when uncertainty in promising regions falls below a threshold. Validate the final predicted optimal configuration through independent DFT calculation [60].

Protocol: Transition State Analysis Using Kinetic Isotope Effects

For experimental validation of computational saddle point predictions, kinetic isotope effect (KIE) measurements provide crucial information about transition state structure [62]:

Isotope-Labeled Substrate Preparation: Synthesize or obtain substrates with specific atomic positions isotopically labeled (e.g., ^2H, ^13C, ^15N). The labeling position should target atoms involved in bond breaking/forming at the suspected transition state [62].

Reaction Rate Measurement: Determine reaction rates for both natural abundance and isotopically labeled substrates under identical conditions. Use sufficient replication to ensure statistical significance of observed rate differences [62].

KIE Calculation and Interpretation: Compute KIE values as the ratio of reaction rates (klight/kheavy). Primary KIEs result from direct changes in bonding at the labeled position, while secondary KIEs arise from conformational or steric changes. Large primary KIEs indicate significant bond order changes at the transition state [62].

Transition State Modeling: Combine experimental KIE values with computational chemistry to refine transition state models. Systematically adjust proposed transition state geometries until computed KIEs match experimental values, thereby constraining the possible transition state structures [62].

Computational Tools and Research Reagents

The experimental and computational investigation of saddle points and adsorption energies requires specialized tools and conceptual "reagents" that facilitate accurate modeling and analysis.

Table: Essential Research Tools for Saddle Point and Adsorption Energy Research

Tool/Category	Function/Purpose	Specific Examples/Applications
Electronic Structure Methods	Calculate potential energy surfaces and adsorption energies	Density Functional Theory (DFT), CCSD(T) for accurate cluster corrections [3]
Optimization Algorithms	Locate minima and saddle points on PES	Stochastic saddle-search [61], Nudged Elastic Band (NEB) [60]
Surrogate Models	Approximate expensive energy evaluations	Graph Neural Networks [60], Gaussian Processes [60]
Activation Strain Analysis	Decompose energy barriers into geometric and electronic components	Distortion/interaction analysis of transition states [3]
Kinetic Isotope Effects	Experimental probe of transition state structure	^2H, ^13C, ^15N labeling to measure intrinsic KIEs [62]
Transition State Analogues	Inhibitor design based on transition state structure	Phosphonamidates for proteases [63], boronic acids for arginase [63]

Visualization of Algorithms and Relationships

Stochastic Saddle-Search Algorithm Workflow

Adsorption Energy & Transition State Relationship

AUGUR Bayesian Optimization Pipeline

The convergence challenges in saddle point search algorithms represent a significant frontier in computational chemistry and materials science, with direct implications for adsorption energy research and transition state theory. Modern approaches combining stochastic approximation, adaptive learning strategies, and curvature analysis have substantially improved our ability to navigate complex high-dimensional energy landscapes, yet important challenges remain [59] [61].

The integration of machine learning surrogates, as demonstrated by the AUGUR pipeline, points toward a future where hybrid approaches leverage both physical principles and data-driven approximations to accelerate saddle point discovery [60]. Similarly, the continued refinement of stochastic methods with theoretical convergence guarantees provides a solid foundation for reliable transition state identification in complex molecular systems [61]. As these computational advances progress alongside experimental techniques like kinetic isotope effects and transition state analogue design, we anticipate increasingly accurate and efficient characterization of adsorption energies and reaction pathways, ultimately enabling more predictive computational modeling across chemistry, materials science, and drug discovery [62] [63].

Selecting Appropriate Adsorbate Models and Exchange-Correlation Functionals

In the computational analysis of surface processes, from heterogeneous catalysis to drug adsorption, the accurate prediction of two key properties—adsorption energy and transition state energy—is paramount. These energies form the foundation for understanding reaction mechanisms, predicting rates, and designing new materials. Their reliable determination hinges on two critical and interrelated modeling decisions: the selection of an appropriate adsorbate model that represents the physical system and the choice of an exchange-correlation (XC) functional that describes the electronic interactions within the framework of Density Functional Theory (DFT). An improper selection at either stage can introduce significant errors, leading to incorrect scientific conclusions and inefficient resource allocation in research and development.

This guide provides an in-depth technical framework for making these crucial selections, contextualized within broader research on adsorption and transition state energies. It synthesizes current methodologies, quantitative benchmarks, and practical protocols to equip researchers with the knowledge to optimize their computational approaches for both accuracy and efficiency.

Fundamental Theoretical Concepts

The Role of the Exchange-Correlation Functional in DFT

Density Functional Theory is the most widely used electronic structure method for modeling surface interactions in extended systems. The total energy in the Kohn-Sham formulation of DFT is expressed as [64]: [ E{\rm tot}^{\rm DFT} = T{\rm non-int.} + E{\rm estat} + E{\rm xc} + E{\rm nucleus-nucleus} ] Here, ( T{\rm non-int.} ) is the kinetic energy of a fictitious non-interacting electron system, ( E{\rm estat} ) encompasses the electron-nucleus attraction and classical electron-electron repulsion, and ( E{\rm xc} ) is the exchange-correlation energy [64] [65]. The exact form of ( E_{\rm xc} ) is unknown; it must be approximated, and the choice of this approximation is the central challenge in DFT.

The XC functional not only affects total energies but also determines the Kohn-Sham potential, which in turn influences the electron density, molecular orbitals, and all derived properties. The accuracy of predicted adsorption energies, reaction barriers, and geometric structures depends profoundly on the quality of the XC approximation [64].

Transition State Theory and Energy Barriers

Transition State Theory (TST) provides the fundamental link between the potential energy surface of a reaction and its kinetic rate. TST posits that the reaction rate constant ( k ) for an elementary step is related to the standard Gibbs energy of activation, ( \Delta^{\ddagger} G^{\ominus} ), by [1]: [ k \propto \exp \left( \frac{ -\Delta^{\ddagger} G^{\ominus} }{k_B T} \right) ] The activation energy is the difference in energy between the reactant state and the transition state (TS), a first-order saddle point on the potential energy surface. For surface reactions, the accuracy of the computed TS energy is doubly sensitive: it depends on a correct description of the adsorption energy of the reactant(s) and a correct description of the bonded, complex-like structure of the TS itself [3]. This makes the choice of the XC functional critical for reliable kinetic modeling.

A Taxonomy of Exchange-Correlation Functionals

The development of XC functionals represents a trade-off between computational cost and physical accuracy. The following hierarchy, from least to most computationally expensive, is commonly used [64].

Table 1: Classification of Exchange-Correlation Functionals

Functional Class	Dependence	Key Examples	Strengths	Weaknesses
Local Density Approximation (LDA)	Local density ( n )	SPW92, SVWN5 [66]	Simple, fast, good for lattice constants	Severe over-binding for molecules and surfaces
Generalized Gradient Approximation (GGA)	Density & its gradient ( n, \nabla n )	PBE [64], RPBE [3], BEEF-vdW [3]	Good compromise of speed/accuracy, widely used	Can struggle with dispersion, chemisorption strengths
meta-GGA	Density, gradient, & kinetic energy density ( n, \nabla n, \tau )	SCAN [64], B97M-V [66], MS2 [3]	Better for diverse bonding environments	More expensive, slower convergence
Hybrid	Mix of HF + DFT exchange	HSE06 [64] [3]	Improved band gaps, reaction barriers	High computational cost, sensitive to k-points in solids

Selecting a Functional for Adsorption and Barrier Calculations

The choice of functional should be guided by the system and property of interest [64] [3].

• For general-purpose adsorption energy calculations on transition metals, the GGA functionals BEEF-vdW and RPBE have been extensively benchmarked. BEEF-vdW often provides a more balanced description for both covalent and non-covalent interactions [3].
• When dispersion forces are critical, as in physisorption or the interaction of aromatic molecules with surfaces, a functional with non-local van der Waals (vdW) corrections is essential. Examples include BEEF-vdW, rVV10, and B97M-V [66] [3].
• For a wide range of bonding types and solid-state properties, meta-GGAs like SCAN and MS2 can offer superior accuracy without the extreme cost of hybrids [64] [3].
• For activation barriers, the accuracy often mirrors the accuracy of the final (chemisorbed) state. Therefore, functionals like BEEF-vdW that perform well for adsorption energies are also a good starting point for barrier calculations [3].

Quantitative Benchmarks for Functional Performance

The performance of different functionals can be assessed against experimentally derived benchmark datasets. The CE39/ADS41 dataset, comprising 38 reliable experimental adsorption energies, is a key resource for this purpose [3].

Table 2: Mean Absolute Errors (MAE) of Select Functionals on Adsorption Energy and Barrier Benchmarks

Functional	Type	MAE for Covalent Adsorption (kcal mol⁻¹)	MAE for Non-Covalent Adsorption (kcal mol⁻¹)	MAE for Activation Barriers (kcal mol⁻¹)
BEEF-vdW [3]	GGA+vdW	~2.2	~2.7	~1.1
RPBE [3]	GGA	Lower than BEEF-vdW for chemisorption	Higher than BEEF-vdW for physisorption	Not specified
MS2 [3]	meta-GGA	Comparable to BEEF-vdW	More balanced than BEEF-vdW	Higher than BEEF-vdW
PBE [3]	GGA	Moderate	Underbinds (poor)	Not specified
New Cluster-Corrected Method [3]	Hybrid/Composite	2.2 (overall)	2.7 (overall)	1.1

The data illustrates that no single functional is universally superior, but BEEF-vdW provides a robust, balanced performance for surface science applications. A recent advanced method combining periodic DFT with higher-level corrections on small clusters shows promising results, achieving errors as low as 2.2 kcal mol⁻¹ for covalent adsorption and 1.1 kcal mol⁻¹ for activation barriers [3].

Adsorbate Models and System Setup

Representing the Adsorbent-Absorbate System

The model used to represent the surface and the adsorbate is as critical as the functional choice. The two primary approaches are the periodic slab model and the cluster model.

• Periodic Slab Model: This is the standard for studying crystalline surfaces. A slab of the material with periodic boundary conditions in two or three dimensions is constructed. A vacuum layer is added in the non-periodic direction to separate repeated images.

  • Workflow: The workflow begins with optimizing the lattice constant of the bulk material, for instance, by fitting a series of single-point energy calculations to the Birch-Murnaghan equation of state [67]. Once the optimal lattice constant is found, a surface slab of sufficient thickness (e.g., 3-5 atomic layers for metals) is created. The adsorbate is then placed on this slab.

• Cluster Model: A finite cluster of atoms is used to represent the local adsorption site. While computationally cheaper, it can suffer from size-effects and edge artifacts, as the electronic structure of a small cluster does not reflect the continuous band structure of a metal [3]. Its use is generally less common for metallic surfaces but can be powerful when combined with embedding schemes or higher-level corrections [3].

Calculating Adsorption and Transition State Energies

• Adsorption Energy ((E{ads})): This is a fundamental quantity calculated as the difference between the total energy of the adsorption complex and the sum of the energies of the isolated, relaxed surface and the adsorbate in the gas phase [67]: [ E{ad} = E{\text{adsorbate+surface}} - E{\text{surface}} - E_{\text{adsorbate}} ] A negative value indicates a stable adsorbed system. The adsorption energy can be highly sensitive to the surface coverage, which must be carefully considered in the model [68] [69].

• Transition State Search: Locating the first-order saddle point corresponding to the transition state is computationally demanding. Common methods include:

  • Nudged Elastic Band (NEB): Replicates the minimum energy path between reactant and product.
  • Dimer Method: An efficient method for direct saddle point search.
  • Frequency Calculation: A true transition state has exactly one imaginary vibrational frequency along the reaction coordinate.

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow for setting up and running an adsorption energy calculation, integrating the choices of model and functional.

Advanced and Specialized Methodologies

Corrective Schemes and Multi-Scale Modeling

For the highest accuracy, particularly when standard semi-local functionals fail, multi-scale corrective approaches can be employed. One promising method involves using a higher-level of theory (e.g., a hybrid functional or wavefunction method like CCSD(T)) on a small cluster model to calculate a "local bond strength" correction. This correction is then applied to the periodic DFT adsorption energy. This approach decouples the description of the local chemisorption bond from the extended band structure effects, leveraging the strengths of both methods [3]. This has been shown to yield high accuracy for challenging systems.

Machine-Learned and System-Tailored Functionals

Machine learning (ML) is being used to develop next-generation XC functionals. These are parameterized by fitting against vast datasets of high-level theoretical results and experimental data [65]. Examples include the MCML and VCML-rVV10 functionals, which are optimized specifically for surface chemistry and bulk properties. A key advantage of some ML functionals is the ability to provide uncertainty quantification for their predictions, offering a Bayesian estimate of the error bar on a computed energy [65].

Case Study: Quantitative Adsorption in Catalysis

A study on NH₃-SCR catalysis over Cu-SSZ-39 zeolite provides an excellent example of quantitative adsorption measurement. Using the Transient Response Method (TRM), researchers determined the adsorption capacities of key reactants at 30°C [69]:

Table 3: Experimentally Determined Adsorption Capacities on Zeolite Catalysts

Catalyst	NO Adsorption (μmol·g⁻¹)	NO₂ Adsorption (μmol·g⁻¹)	NH₃ Adsorption (μmol·g⁻¹)
Cu-SSZ-39	11	1200	2653
H-SSZ-39	10	1185	2416

This quantitative data is crucial for validating computational models. A reliable DFT functional should be able to reproduce the relative trends and approximate magnitudes of these adsorption energies.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Software

Table 4: Key Software and Computational "Reagents" for Adsorption Modeling

Tool Name	Type	Primary Function	Relevance to Adsorption/Transition State Modeling
VASP [64]	Software Package	Periodic DFT Code	Industry-standard for performing plane-wave DFT calculations on surfaces and solids.
CP2K [67]	Software Package	DFT & Molecular Dynamics	Uses a mixed Gaussian and plane-wave approach; excellent for large systems.
AMS [70]	Software Suite	Multi-Method Modeling	Includes ADF (molecular DFT), BAND (periodic DFT with atomic orbitals), and Zacros (Kinetic Monte Carlo).
Xsorb [10]	Specialized Software	Adsorption Configuration Search	Automates the process of finding the most stable adsorption configuration and energy.
Quantum ESPRESSO [70]	Software Package	Plane-Wave Periodic DFT	An open-source alternative for plane-wave DFT calculations.
NONMEM [68]	Software Package	Population Pharmacokinetic Analysis	Used for complex absorption modeling in drug development, illustrating the parallel need for robust models in related fields.

The accurate computational prediction of adsorption and transition state energies is a cornerstone of modern research in catalysis and materials science. This guide has outlined a structured pathway for this endeavor, emphasizing the synergistic importance of the adsorbate model and the exchange-correlation functional. There is no universal "best" choice; the optimal strategy is dictated by the specific chemical system, the property of interest, and the available computational resources. By leveraging benchmark data, understanding the strengths and weaknesses of different functional classes, and applying rigorous model setup protocols, researchers can make informed decisions that significantly enhance the predictive power of their simulations. The ongoing development of machine-learned and multi-scale corrective methods promises to push the boundaries of accuracy even further, solidifying the role of computation as an indispensable partner to experiment.

In the fields of computational chemistry and drug discovery, high-throughput virtual screening (HTVS) has become an indispensable technique for identifying promising molecular candidates from vast chemical spaces. The core challenge in these campaigns lies in balancing the competing demands of computational accuracy and efficiency. This is particularly acute in research focused on adsorption energy and transition state energy, where high-fidelity simulations are exceptionally computationally expensive. The energy profiles that dictate catalytic activity or drug efficacy are determined by these precise energy calculations, yet the computational cost of evaluating billions of candidates with methods like density functional theory (DFT) is often prohibitive [3] [71].

The need for efficient screening is undeniable. The theoretical chemical space encompasses approximately 10^68 compounds, making exhaustive screening impossible [71]. Similarly, in materials science, identifying candidates with specific properties requires evaluating immense compositional spaces. This paper provides a technical guide to constructing and optimizing HTVS pipelines that strategically manage the trade-off between computational cost and predictive accuracy, with specific application to the challenges of calculating adsorption energies and elusive transition states in heterogeneous catalysis and drug discovery.

Theoretical Foundations: Accuracy Challenges in Energy Calculations

The Critical Role of Adsorption and Transition State Energies

In both heterogeneous catalysis and drug design, the interaction strength between a molecule and a surface, quantified by the adsorption energy, is a primary descriptor for catalyst performance and drug binding affinity. Accurate prediction of these energies is therefore critical. However, density functional theory (DFT), the workhorse for such calculations, struggles to describe both covalent and non-covalent interactions simultaneously with high accuracy [3]. For instance, a study on methanol decomposition on Pd(111) and Ni(111) showed that while the optB86b-vdW and PBE+D3 functionals excelled at describing the weak initial adsorption of methanol, they severely overestimated the bond strength of the chemisorbed methoxy (OCH₃) intermediate. Conversely, standard PBE without dispersion correction was accurate for the chemisorbed species but failed for the weak initial adsorption [3]. This highlights the fundamental challenge: no single functional provides a universally accurate description of all interaction types, forcing a choice between specialized, and often costly, methods.

Transition state (TS) theory is equally pivotal, as the transition state represents the point of no return for a chemical reaction, and its energy determines the reaction rate. Transition states are first-order saddle points on the potential energy surface, characterized by a vanishing gradient and a Hessian matrix with exactly one negative eigenvalue [72]. The fleeting nature of the TS makes it nearly impossible to observe experimentally, placing the full burden of its characterization on computational methods [73].

The High Computational Cost of High-Fidelity Methods

The most accurate computational methods come with a steep computational price. Quantum chemistry techniques like CCSD(T) can, in principle, be converged to high accuracy for small systems but are prohibitively expensive for large, extended systems like transition metal surfaces [3]. Similarly, calculating transition states using DFT requires complex optimization algorithms (e.g., Newton-Raphson) and often begins with time-consuming relaxed potential energy surface scans to generate a reasonable initial guess [72]. This process can take "hours or even days to calculate just one transition state" [73], rendering direct application to large-scale screening campaigns impractical.

Table 1: Performance of Different DFT Functionals for Adsorption Energy Calculations on Transition Metal Surfaces

Functional	Functional Type	Strength	Weakness	Mean Absolute Error (CE39 Dataset)
BEEF-vdW	Dispersion-corrected GGA	Accurate for chemisorbed systems	Larger errors for physisorbed systems	Low for chemisorption [3]
RPBE+D3	GGA with dispersion	Good performance for some systems	Overestimates adsorption of chemisorbed systems	Varies; can be low with specific corrections [3]
SW-R88	Weighted sum of RPBE & optB88-vdW	Accurate for both covalent and non-covalent interactions	No specific functional form; difficult for force calculations	Lower than BEEF-vdW [3]
PBE	GGA	Accurate for some covalent bonds	Underestimates weak, non-covalent interactions	High for physisorption [3]

A Framework for Optimal High-Throughput Virtual Screening

The Multi-Fidelity Pipeline Strategy

The optimal strategy to overcome the cost-accuracy dilemma is to implement a multi-stage HTVS pipeline. This approach sequences computational models of increasing fidelity and cost in series to progressively narrow down the candidate pool [71]. An initial stage might use a fast but approximate machine-learning model or a cheap molecular descriptor filter. Promising candidates from this stage are passed to a more expensive method, such as a force-field or semi-empirical calculation. Finally, only the most promising candidates are evaluated with high-fidelity, high-cost methods like DFT or coupled-cluster calculations [71]. This cascading design ensures that expensive resources are allocated only to candidates with a high probability of success.

The operational policy of such a pipeline is defined by screening thresholds (( \lambdai )) at each stage ( i ). A molecule proceeds to the next stage only if its predicted score ( fi(x) ) meets or exceeds the threshold ( \lambda_i ) for that stage. The central problem is to optimally set these thresholds to maximize the screening outcome for a given computational budget [71].

Formalizing the HTVS Pipeline and Optimization Objective

A general N-stage HTVS pipeline can be defined as a series of stages ( Si: (fi: X \rightarrow \mathbb{R}; \lambdai; ci) ), for ( i = 1, 2, …, N ), where:

• ( f_i ) is the predictive model (scoring function) at stage ( i ).
• ( \lambda_i ) is the screening threshold at stage ( i ).
• ( ci ) is the average computational cost per molecule for ( fi ) [71].

The set of molecules at each stage is given by: ( Xi = { x \mid x \in X{i-1} \text{ and } f{i-1}(x) \geq \lambda{i-1} } ), with ( X_1 ) being the entire library [71].

Two primary optimization scenarios are:

• Maximizing Throughput under Fixed Budget: Maximize the number of promising candidates identified given a fixed total computational budget.
• Balancing Throughput and Efficiency: Jointly optimize the screening throughput (number of promising candidates) and screening efficiency (ratio of promising candidates to total computational cost) when the budget is flexible [71].

The key to solving this is to estimate the joint probability distribution of the predictive scores from the multi-fidelity models across all stages. This model enables the prediction of the likelihood that a candidate will ultimately be successful based on its performance in an early, cheap screening stage, allowing for optimal decision-making.

Diagram 1: Multi-stage HTVS pipeline workflow.

Practical Protocols and Computational Tools

Protocol for Adsorption Energy Screening

This protocol is designed for identifying materials or catalysts with optimal adsorption properties.

• Stage 1: Fast Machine Learning Prescreening

  • Tool: A pre-trained machine learning model (e.g., a graph neural network) on a dataset of known adsorption energies [74] [71].
  • Procedure: Input the chemical structure of the adsorbate and the candidate surface material. The model outputs a predicted adsorption energy.
  • Decision: Pass the top ( X\% ) of candidates (e.g., those with predicted adsorption energies within a target range) to Stage 2. The threshold is determined by the optimal HTVS policy [71].

• Stage 2: Low-Cost DFT Calculation

  • Tool: A fast but less accurate DFT functional (e.g., PBE) with a minimal basis set on a simplified cluster model [3] [8].
  • Procedure: Perform a geometry optimization of the adsorbate on a small, representative cluster model of the surface (e.g., Ti₁₀Oâ‚‚â‚€ for TiOâ‚‚) [8]. Calculate the adsorption energy as ( E{ads} = E{adsorbate/surface} - (E{surface} + E{adsorbate}) ).
  • Decision: Candidates with ( E_{ads} ) meeting the target criteria proceed to the final stage.

• Stage 3: High-Fidelity Periodic DFT

  • Tool: A more accurate DFT functional (e.g., BEEF-vdW, RPBE, or a hybrid functional) under periodic boundary conditions [3].
  • Procedure: Perform a full geometry optimization on a periodic slab model of the surface. Include dispersion corrections (e.g., D3) and use a higher planewave cutoff. For increased accuracy, apply a cluster-based correction: calculate the adsorption energy on both the periodic model and a small cluster, then apply the difference between a high-level (e.g., CCSD(T)) and low-level calculation on the cluster to the periodic result [3].
  • Output: A refined, high-accuracy adsorption energy for the final candidate selection.

Protocol for Transition State Screening

This protocol leverages modern machine learning to accelerate the location of transition states, a traditionally prohibitive step.

• Stage 1: Reaction Pathway Sampling

  • Tool: A low-level method such as a relaxed potential energy surface scan or semi-empirical quantum mechanics (e.g., PM6).
  • Procedure: Systematically vary a key reaction coordinate to generate an initial guess for the reaction pathway and an approximate transition state geometry [72].

• Stage 2: Machine Learning Transition State Prediction

  • Tool: A generative machine learning model, such as a diffusion model trained on known reactants, products, and transition states [73].
  • Procedure: Input the optimized 3D structures of the reactant and product. The model generates multiple candidate transition state structures in seconds.
  • Decision: A separate "confidence model" ranks the generated structures, and the most likely candidates are selected for verification [73].

• Stage 3: Transition State Verification

  • Tool: High-level DFT (e.g., a hybrid functional).
  • Procedure: Perform a frequency calculation on the ML-generated structure to confirm it has exactly one imaginary frequency. Perform an intrinsic reaction coordinate (IRC) calculation to verify it connects to the correct reactant and product [72] [73].
  • Output: A validated transition state structure and energy.

Table 2: Key Computational Tools for Energy Screening

Tool Category	Example Software/Method	Primary Function	Considerations for Use
Ab Initio Quantum Chemistry	DFT (BEEF-vdW, RPBE, PBE), CCSD(T)	High-fidelity energy and property calculation	High computational cost; accuracy varies with functional [3].
Molecular Dynamics	GROMACS, AMBER, NAMD	Simulating thermodynamic and kinetic properties	GROMACS is fast and open-source; AMBER has accurate force fields but some modules require a license [75].
Docking & Scoring	DOCK, FlexX, GOLD, GLIDE	Predicting binding poses and affinities	Perceived as the in silico equivalent to HTS; scoring can be error-prone [76].
Machine Learning	Diffusion Models, Bayesian Classifiers, Graph Neural Networks	Fast property prediction and transition state generation	Enables "scaffold hopping"; can predict TS structures in seconds [73] [76].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Computational Screening

Reagent / Resource	Function/Biological Role	Example Application in Validation
Antisense Oligonucleotides	Chemically modified RNAs that bind target mRNA to block protein synthesis.	Validating target role in disease models (e.g., P2X3 receptor in chronic pain) [77].
Small Interfering RNA (siRNA)	Double-stranded RNA that activates RNAi pathway for sequence-specific gene silencing.	Target validation in cells; delivery to target cells remains a challenge [77].
Monoclonal Antibodies (mAbs)	Highly specific proteins that bind to unique epitopes on a target.	Excellent for validating cell surface targets (e.g., anti-TrkA antibody MNAC13 reduced pain hypersensitivity) [77].
Tool Compounds / Inhibitors	Small bioactive molecules that functionally modulate effector proteins.	Classic chemical genomics approach for target identification and validation [77].
Public Bioactivity Databases	Structured repositories of biological assay data.	Sources of training data for machine learning models (e.g., ChEMBL, PubChem, CDD Vault) [78].

The strategic management of computational cost is not merely an operational concern but a fundamental aspect of modern computational research in adsorption and transition state energy studies. By adopting a formal, optimized multi-fidelity HTVS pipeline, researchers can dramatically increase their return on computational investment. This approach, which integrates fast machine learning prescreening with progressively more accurate and expensive physics-based models, allows for the exploration of vast chemical spaces that would otherwise be intractable. As machine learning methods continue to mature, particularly for elusive states like transition states, the efficiency and scope of these virtual screening campaigns will only increase, accelerating the discovery of next-generation catalysts, materials, and therapeutics.

In computational research focused on adsorption and transition state energies, the identification and correction of unphysical configurations is not merely a procedural step but a foundational aspect of ensuring scientific validity. Unphysical configurations—geometrically or electronically improbable molecular structures that arise from computational artifacts—can severely compromise the accuracy of calculated energetics, leading to erroneous conclusions about reaction pathways, catalytic activity, and material properties [9]. Within the specific context of adsorption energy and transition state energy relationships, these inaccuracies propagate through the entire research framework, affecting barrier height predictions, reaction rate calculations, and ultimately, the theoretical understanding of surface processes [3] [23].

The challenge is particularly pronounced in transition metal systems and complex porous materials like Metal-Organic Frameworks (MOFs), where the accurate description of electronic structure and weak interactions remains difficult for many density functional theory (DFT) functionals [3]. Recent benchmark studies highlight that systematic errors in describing both covalent and non-covalent interactions can lead to mean absolute errors in adsorption energies of approximately 2-3 kcal mol⁻¹, which is significant for catalytic applications [3]. Furthermore, the 2025 Open DAC dataset reveals that failures in structural validation and inadequate treatment of framework flexibility can introduce substantial artifacts in adsorption energy calculations, emphasizing the critical need for robust validation protocols [9].

This technical guide provides a comprehensive framework for identifying, diagnosing, and correcting unphysical configurations, with specific emphasis on methodologies relevant to adsorption and transition state research. By integrating advanced validation techniques, researchers can significantly improve the reliability of their computational predictions in surface science and catalysis.

Defining and Identifying Unphysical Configurations

Characteristics and Common Manifestations

Unphysical configurations in computational chemistry represent states that violate fundamental chemical principles or exhibit numerically unstable properties. These configurations typically manifest through several recognizable signatures:

• Geometric distortions: Bond lengths, angles, or dihedral angles that deviate significantly from established empirical ranges or cause unacceptable steric strain. For example, in transition metal clusters, metal-adsorbate distances may be inaccurately described by certain functionals, requiring higher-level corrections [3].
• Electronic instabilities: Unphysical charge distributions, incorrect spin states, or convergence to metastable electronic configurations rather than the true ground state. This is particularly problematic for open-d-shell transition metals with complex spin-coupling [3].
• Incorrect transition states: Structures incorrectly identified as first-order saddle points that either contain multiple imaginary frequencies or do not properly connect to reactant and product basins [79].

Consequences for Adsorption and Transition State Energies

The impact of unphysical configurations extends directly to energetic calculations central to surface science research:

• Adsorption energy errors: Incorrect geometries lead to faulty interaction energies, with recent studies showing errors up to 0.2 eV for systems with poor k-point convergence or inadequate treatment of dispersion interactions [9].
• Transition state misidentification: False transition states yield incorrect activation barriers, compromising the accuracy of predicted reaction rates through Transition State Theory [23] [2].
• Database contamination: Unvalidated structures incorporated into training datasets for machine learning potentials perpetuate systematic errors, as noted in the ODAC25 dataset development [9].

Table 1: Common Unphysical Configurations in Surface Science Calculations

Configuration Type	Key Indicators	Impact on Energetics
Overbound Adsorbate	Abnormally short surface-adsorbate distances; exaggerated charge transfer	Overestimation of adsorption strength; error ~5-10 kcal mol⁻¹ [3]
Underbound Adsorbate	Excessive surface-adsorbate distances; lack of orbital overlap	Underestimation of adsorption strength; poor description of physisorption [3]
Incorrect Transition State	Multiple imaginary frequencies; does not connect reactants/products	Error in activation energy; faulty kinetic predictions [79]
Unphysical MOF Configurations	Incorrect metal oxidation states; strained linkers	Errors in host-guest interaction energies [9]

Methodologies for Identifying Unphysical Configurations

Structural and Electronic Analysis Protocols

A multi-faceted approach to identification is essential for comprehensive validation:

• Geometric validation: Compare calculated bond lengths and angles against experimental crystallographic data or high-level quantum chemical benchmarks. For surface-adsorbate complexes, this includes monitoring metal-adsorbate distances and binding geometries [3].
• Vibrational frequency analysis: Compute harmonic frequencies to confirm local minima (all real frequencies) and transition states (exactly one imaginary frequency). The character of the imaginary frequency must correspond to the intended reaction coordinate [79].
• Potential Energy Surface (PES) scanning: Conduct constrained optimizations along proposed reaction coordinates to verify the continuous evolution of structures and energies between stationary points [79].
• Charge and spin analysis: Evaluate atomic charges (e.g., using DDEC methods) and spin densities to confirm appropriate electronic configurations, particularly for transition metal systems [9].

Thermodynamic Consistency Checks

For adsorption and transition state calculations, thermodynamic consistency provides a powerful validation tool:

• Reaction energy consistency: Verify that the energy difference between reactants and products matches the sum of elementary step energies along the reaction pathway.
• Barrier height relationships: Confirm that forward and reverse activation energies relate consistently to the overall reaction energy (ΔE = Eₐ,forward - Eₐ,reverse).
• Coverage effects: Assess the consistency of adsorption energies across different surface coverages, as unphysical configurations often exhibit anomalous coverage dependencies [3].

The following workflow diagram illustrates the comprehensive validation process for identifying unphysical configurations in adsorption and transition state calculations:

Correction Protocols for Unphysical Configurations

Systematic Correction Strategies

When unphysical configurations are identified, targeted correction protocols should be applied:

• Cluster-based corrections: For periodic surface calculations, apply corrections derived from higher-level calculations on small metal clusters to improve adsorption energies. This approach has demonstrated mean absolute errors of 2.2 kcal mol⁻¹ for covalent adsorption energies and 2.7 kcal mol⁻¹ for non-covalent adsorption energies when benchmarked against experimental data [3].
• Improved sampling protocols: Enhance k-point sampling using a k-point density-based approach (e.g., ⌈K/a⌉×⌈K/b⌉×⌈K/c⌉ for a unit cell of size a×b×c) rather than fixed 1×1×1 sampling, which can introduce errors up to 0.2 eV in some systems [9].
• Structure re-relaxation: After adsorbate removal, re-relax the empty framework to obtain the correct ground state reference structure. This addresses artifacts caused by adsorbate-induced deformations that persist after desorption [9].
• Transition state optimization methods: Employ specialized algorithms for locating valid transition states:
  • Quadratic Synchronous Transit (QST3): Uses quadratic interpolation between reactants, products, and a guess TS, then optimizes normal to the interpolation path [79].
  • Nudged Elastic Band (NEB): Places multiple images along the reaction path with spring forces, optimizing perpendicular to the path to find the MEP [79].
  • Climbing-Image NEB (CI-NEB): Modifies the highest energy image in NEB to climb upwards along the band while relaxing downwards, efficiently locating the saddle point [79].
  • Dimer method: Uses two closely spaced images to estimate the lowest curvature mode and follows this direction to locate saddle points without calculating the full Hessian [79].

Table 2: Correction Methods for Specific Configuration Problems

Problem Type	Recommended Correction Method	Expected Improvement
Inaccurate adsorption energies	Cluster-based higher-level corrections [3]	MAE reduction to 2.2-2.7 kcal mol⁻¹
Poor k-point convergence	Density-based k-point sampling (K=40 Å⁻¹) [9]	Energy error reduction to ~0.01 eV
Adsorbate-induced framework deformation	Empty framework re-relaxation after adsorbate removal [9]	Elimination of reference state artifacts
False transition states	CI-NEB with subsequent frequency verification [79]	Correct saddle point identification
Unphysical MOF geometries	MOFChecker validation and structural correction [9]	Chemically valid framework structures

Workflow for Transition State Validation and Correction

Validating and correcting transition states requires specialized approaches distinct from minimum energy structures. The following protocol ensures identification of physically meaningful saddle points:

Experimental Protocols and Computational Standards

Benchmarking Against Experimental Data

Rigorous benchmarking against reliable experimental data provides the ultimate validation of computational methodologies:

• Reference datasets: Utilize established experimental datasets such as the CE39 dataset for adsorption energies on transition metal surfaces or the SBH10 database for dissociation barriers [3].
• Experimental comparators: For adsorption energies, reference single-crystal adsorption calorimetry measurements on well-defined surfaces [80]. For transition states, use molecular beam scattering, laser-assisted associative desorption, and thermal experiments [3] [23].
• Uncertainty quantification: Report mean absolute errors (MAE) and maximum deviations between computed and experimental values. For the cluster-based correction approach, MAEs of 2.2 kcal mol⁻¹ for covalent adsorption, 2.7 kcal mol⁻¹ for non-covalent adsorption, and 1.1 kcal mol⁻¹ for activation barriers have been demonstrated [3].

Database Quality Assurance

For large-scale computational screening efforts, implement comprehensive quality control:

• Automated structure validation: Apply tools like MOFChecker to identify structures with problematic atomic contacts, incorrect oxidation states, or stoichiometric inconsistencies [9].
• Energy correction protocols: Implement post-processing corrections for systematic errors, such as the k-point energy correction that reduces convergence errors by an order of magnitude at approximately 1% of the computational cost of full re-calculation [9].
• Cross-functional benchmarking: Compare results across multiple exchange-correlation functionals (e.g., BEEF-vdW, RPBE, SCAN) to identify functional-dependent anomalies [3].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Solutions

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools for Configuration Validation

Tool/Resource	Primary Function	Application Context
MOFChecker [9]	Structural validation of metal-organic frameworks	Identifies problematic oxidation states, coordination, and stoichiometries
Cluster Correction Approach [3]	Higher-level correction of periodic calculation energies	Improves adsorption energy accuracy for transition metal surfaces
CI-NEB [79]	Transition state location without initial guess	Finds minimum energy path and saddle points on complex PES
QST3 [79]	Transition state optimization with guess structure	Efficient TS optimization when approximate structure is known
Dimer Method [79]	Saddle point search without Hessian calculation	Suitable for large systems with fixed lattice parameters
ODAC25 Dataset [9]	Benchmark for adsorption in porous materials	Validates adsorption energy calculations in MOFs
CE39/SBH10 Datasets [3]	Experimental benchmarks for surface reactions	Validates adsorption energies and reaction barriers on transition metals

The validation and correction of unphysical configurations represents an essential discipline within computational surface science and catalysis research. By implementing the systematic protocols outlined in this guide—ranging from structural validation and frequency analysis to advanced correction strategies like cluster-based corrections and variational transition state theory—researchers can significantly enhance the reliability of their adsorption energy and transition state calculations. The integration of these methodologies into standard computational workflows ensures that theoretical predictions provide meaningful insights into surface processes and reaction mechanisms, ultimately advancing the design of catalysts and functional materials through more trustworthy computational screening and analysis.

Benchmarking and Best Practices: Ensuring Predictive Accuracy

The design of novel heterogeneous catalysts is paramount for addressing global challenges in renewable energy storage and the synthesis of sustainable chemicals [6]. A critical property in computational catalysis is the adsorption energy, defined as the energy associated with a molecule (adsorbate) interacting with a catalyst surface [6]. Adsorption energies of reaction intermediates are powerful descriptors that correlate strongly with experimental outcomes such as catalytic activity and selectivity [6]. Accurate prediction of these energies enables the construction of reliable reaction energy paths, which is fundamental for high-throughput computational screening of potential catalyst materials [3]. The adsorption energy (ΔEads) is calculated using the formula:

ΔEads = Esys - Eslab - Egas

where Esys is the energy of the adsorbate-surface system, Eslab is the energy of the clean surface, and Egas is the energy of the gas-phase adsorbate [6]. The precise calculation of this energy is complex, requiring the identification of the global minimum energy configuration across all possible placements and orientations of the adsorbate on the catalyst surface [6]. This process is computationally intensive, traditionally relying on Density Functional Theory (DFT) calculations that can take days or weeks for a single material [6]. The relationship between adsorption and desorption processes, governed by transition state theory, further underscores the need for accurate and efficient computational methods [23].

The Benchmarking Challenge in Adsorption Energy Computation

A significant obstacle in advancing computational methods has been the lack of standardized datasets for benchmarking. While datasets like the Open Catalyst 2020 (OC20) have provided valuable resources, they typically contain only one relaxed configuration per adsorbate-surface combination. This single data point is unlikely to represent the true global minimum adsorption energy, making OC20 unsuitable for benchmarking the task of finding the minimum binding energy [6]. Prior to OC20-Dense, assessing the performance of new methods for finding low-energy adsorbate-surface configurations was challenging and often relied on testing with a small number of systems, making generalization difficult to evaluate [6]. This gap in the research ecosystem hindered the development and fair comparison of robust machine learning models and algorithms designed for accurate adsorption energy prediction.

OC20-Dense: A New Benchmark for Adsorption Energy Search

The Open Catalyst 2020-Dense (OC20-Dense) dataset was introduced to provide a standardized benchmark that closely approximates the ground truth adsorption energy by densely exploring numerous configurations for each unique adsorbate-surface system [6]. Its primary purpose is to enable the rigorous evaluation of methods for computing adsorption energies, moving closer to practical catalyst screening applications [6].

Dataset Composition and Structure

OC20-Dense is constructed from the OC20 dataset but focuses on a curated set of adsorbate-surface combinations. For each combination, it provides a dense sampling of initial adsorbate configurations, which are then relaxed using DFT to establish a robust baseline for the true adsorption energy [6]. The dataset is divided into two main splits:

• Validation Set: Used for method development and tuning.
• Test Set: Used for final performance reporting.

To assess generalizability across different material domains, the dataset includes samples from four distinct splits of the original OC20 data, ensuring that models are tested on both familiar and novel chemical environments [6]. The quantitative scale of OC20-Dense is substantial, requiring approximately 4 million CPU-hours to complete, and it encompasses a wide diversity of surfaces and adsorbates [6]. The table below summarizes the core statistics of the OC20-Dense dataset.

Table 1: Composition of the OC20-Dense Dataset

Category	Description
Total Adsorbate-Surface Combinations	~1,000 unique systems [6]
Total Configurations	~100,000 unique adsorbate placements [6]
Number of Adsorbates	74 different molecules [6]
Number of Inorganic Bulk Structures	800+ different materials [6]
Domain Coverage	In-Domain (ID), Out-of-Domain Adsorbate (OOD-Adsorbate), Out-of-Domain Catalyst (OOD-Catalyst), Out-of-Domain Both (OOD-Both) [6]

Methodological Framework: The AdsorbML Algorithm

The introduction of OC20-Dense was accompanied by AdsorbML, a hybrid algorithm designed to efficiently and accurately identify the adsorption energy by leveraging machine learning potentials [6]. AdsorbML operates on a spectrum of trade-offs between computational speed and prediction accuracy. The core of its methodology involves a multi-stage workflow:

• Configuration Sampling: A large number of potential adsorbate configurations are generated using a combination of heuristic placements (e.g., atop, bridge, hollow sites) and random sampling to explore the configuration space thoroughly [6].
• ML-Driven Relaxation: These initial structures are relaxed using machine learning potentials, which are orders of magnitude faster than DFT, to find their local energy minima [6].
• DFT Refinement: The best k relaxed structures (those with the lowest energies from the ML relaxation) are selected for refinement using more accurate, but computationally expensive, single-point DFT calculations or full DFT relaxations [6].

This hybrid approach achieves a significant speedup—up to ~2000× compared to pure DFT—while maintaining high accuracy, successfully finding the lowest energy configuration 87.36% of the time in benchmark studies [6].

Diagram 1: AdsorbML algorithm workflow for finding adsorption energy.

Experimental Protocols and Validation

Detailed Methodology for Adsorption Energy Calculation

The experimental protocol for establishing the ground truth in OC20-Dense and for methods like AdsorbML involves several critical steps. The following section outlines the key reagents and computational procedures used in this field.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Item / Software	Function / Description
Density Functional Theory (DFT)	A computational quantum mechanical method used to calculate the electronic structure and energy of a system, serving as the reference for accuracy [6].
Machine Learning Potentials (MLPs)	Models trained on DFT data to predict atomic forces and energies, enabling rapid structure relaxations (e.g., models from OC20) [6].
Open Catalyst 2020-Dense (OC20-Dense)	Benchmark dataset providing diverse adsorbate-surface combinations with dense configuration sampling for validation [6].
Open Catalyst 2020 (OC20) Dataset	A larger dataset containing over 1.2 million DFT relaxations used for training machine learning models [81].
Graph Neural Networks (GNNs)	A class of machine learning models (e.g., CGCNN, SchNet) that operate on graph representations of atomic structures to predict energies and forces [81].

The workflow for a single adsorbate-surface combination proceeds as follows:

• Initial Structure Generation: For a given catalyst surface and adsorbate molecule, a large set (e.g., ~100) of initial atomic structures is generated. This involves:
  • Heuristic Placements: Positioning the adsorbate at high-symmetry sites on the surface, such as atop (on top of a surface atom), bridge (between two atoms), and hollow (center of three or more atoms) sites [82].
  • Random Sampling: Additional sites are uniformly sampled on the surface, with the adsorbate placed at each site with a random rotation along the z-axis to ensure broad coverage of the configuration space [6] [82].
• Structure Relaxation: Each initial structure is relaxed to its local energy minimum. In the traditional approach, this is done using DFT, which iteratively calculates atomic forces and updates atom positions until forces are minimized [6]. In hybrid approaches like AdsorbML, this is first done using faster ML potentials.
• Energy Calculation and Validation: After relaxation, the energy of the system (Esys) is recorded. The adsorption energy is computed using Equation 1. The relaxed structures are then checked for physical validity to ensure the calculated energy is meaningful [82]. Invalid outcomes include:
  • Desorption: The adsorbate molecule does not bind to the surface in the final structure.
  • Dissociation: The adsorbate molecule breaks apart into multiple fragments.
  • Surface Mismatch: The surface structure changes significantly from the original clean slab reference [82].
• Global Minimum Identification: The adsorption energy for the adsorbate-surface system is defined as the lowest energy among all valid relaxed configurations [82].

Evaluation Metrics and Challenge Outcomes

The primary metric for evaluating performance on the OC20-Dense benchmark and in associated challenges like the Open Catalyst Challenge is the Success Rate (SR) [82]. A prediction is considered successful if:

• The predicted adsorption energy is within 0.1 eV of the DFT-computed ground truth.
• The predicted structure does not violate the physical constraints of desorption, dissociation, or surface mismatch [82].

The rigorous application of this benchmark was demonstrated in the Open Catalyst Challenge 2023, where the winning team achieved a success rate of 46.0% on a hidden test set, highlighting the difficulty of the task and the current performance ceiling of state-of-the-art methods [82].

Implications for Adsorption and Transition State Energy Relationships

The development of OC20-Dense and advanced algorithms like AdsorbML has profound implications for research into adsorption and transition state energy relationships. Accurate adsorption energies are the foundational data points for constructing free energy diagrams, which are used to determine the most favorable reaction pathways and to identify rate-limiting steps on a catalyst surface [6]. Furthermore, there is a known correlation between the accuracy of describing chemisorbed final states and the accuracy of predicting transition state barriers for dissociative reactions; functionals that perform well for adsorption energies often also describe barriers well [3]. By providing a means to rapidly and accurately compute adsorption energies across a vast chemical space, these tools empower researchers to build more reliable models of surface reactivity. This accelerates the discovery of catalysts for critical reactions, such as CO2 reduction and renewable fuel synthesis, by enabling a more principled and data-driven understanding of the relationship between a catalyst's structure, its adsorption properties, and its overall catalytic activity [6] [3].

The rational design of novel materials for applications in catalysis, energy storage, and neuromorphic computing hinges on accurate predictions of atomic-scale interactions, with adsorption energy serving as a fundamental quantity. Computational methods enable researchers to probe these interactions at a level of detail often inaccessible to experimental techniques alone. However, the landscape of computational chemistry is diverse, encompassing methods ranging from highly accurate correlated wavefunction theory to efficient machine learning potentials, each with distinct trade-offs in accuracy, computational speed, and applicability. This whitepaper provides a comparative analysis of prevalent computational methods, framing their performance within the critical context of adsorption energy and transition state energy relationships. By synthesizing recent advances, we aim to equip researchers with the knowledge to select appropriate methodologies for their specific challenges in materials science and drug development.

The prediction of chemical properties like adsorption energies involves a hierarchy of computational approaches. Density Functional Theory (DFT) remains the workhorse for its balance of efficiency and accuracy, modeling the electron density directly to solve the quantum mechanical many-body problem. While efficient, its accuracy is limited by the approximations in the exchange-correlation functional. For higher accuracy, correlated Wavefunction Theory (cWFT) methods, such as Coupled Cluster Singles, Doubles, and perturbative Triples (CCSD(T)), offer a systematically improvable hierarchy but at a steep computational cost that traditionally limits their application to small systems. Bridging the cost-accuracy gap, embedding methods like the autoSKZCAM framework partition a system into regions treated with different levels of theory (e.g., cWFT for the active site and DFT for the environment), delivering high accuracy at a manageable cost for ionic materials [83]. Finally, Machine Learning (ML) Potentials, including Neural Network Potentials (NNPs) and other deep learning frameworks, are emerging as powerful tools. Trained on data from high-level ab initio calculations, these models can achieve near-quantum accuracy at a fraction of the computational cost, enabling large-scale and long-time-scale molecular dynamics simulations [84] [85].

Quantitative Comparison of Method Performance

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Computational Methods for Adsorption Energy Prediction

Method	Theoretical Accuracy	Computational Speed	System Size Limitation	Key Applicability	Representative Adsorption Energy Error
Density Functional Theory (DFT)	Moderate	Fast	~100-1000 atoms	Broad; materials screening, trends	Inconsistent; functional-dependent [83]
Correlated Wavefunction (cWFT/CCSD(T))	High (Gold Standard)	Very Slow	~10-100 atoms	Small molecules, benchmark studies	~0.01-0.05 eV (for suitable systems)
Multilevel Embedding (autoSKZCAM)	High	Moderate	~100s atoms (ionic materials)	High-accuracy validation, resolving debates	Reproduces experimental enthalpies [83]
Machine Learning Potentials (e.g., EMFF-2025)	DFT-level to High	Very Fast (after training)	~Millions of atoms	Large-scale MD, high-throughput screening	MAE ~0.1 eV/atom for energy [85]
Transformer-based ML Framework	High	Fast (after training)	Limited by training data	Catalyst screening, mechanism elucidation	MAE <0.12 eV for adsorption energy [84]

Table 2: Analysis of Computational Cost and Scalability

Method	Formal Scaling	Typical Time per Single-Point Energy	Parallelization Efficiency	Data Dependency
Density Functional Theory (DFT)	O(N³)	Minutes to hours	High	None
Correlated Wavefunction (cWFT/CCSD(T))	O(N⁷)	Days to weeks	Moderate	None
Multilevel Embedding (autoSKZCAM)	O(N³) to O(N⁷)	Hours to days	High	None
Machine Learning Potentials (e.g., EMFF-2025)	O(N)	Seconds to minutes	High	Extensive training data required
Transformer-based ML Framework	O(N) (per descriptor)	Seconds	Moderate	Extensive training data required

The performance metrics of computational methods reveal a clear cost-accuracy trade-off. DFT provides a reasonable balance, enabling the screening of transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDs) for memristive applications by calculating metal adatom adsorption energies, though its results can be inconsistent and functional-dependent [7] [83]. In contrast, the autoSKZCAM embedding framework demonstrates high accuracy by reproducing experimental adsorption enthalpies for 19 diverse adsorbate-surface systems on ionic materials like MgO and TiOâ‚‚, with values spanning a 1.5 eV range from physisorption to chemisorption [83]. This method resolves long-standing debates, such as identifying the covalently bonded dimer as the most stable configuration for NO on MgO(001), a finding consistent with spectroscopy experiments but missed by many DFT functionals [83].

Machine Learning methods are redefining the boundaries of this trade-off. The EMFF-2025 NNP for energetic materials achieves DFT-level accuracy with a mean absolute error (MAE) for energy predominantly within ±0.1 eV/atom, while being capable of simulating systems and time scales far beyond the reach of direct DFT [85]. Similarly, a Transformer-based deep learning framework for predicting CO adsorption on metal oxides reports an MAE below 0.12 eV for adsorption energy and a correlation coefficient exceeding 0.92, leveraging empirical descriptors to avoid expensive DFT calculations during application [84].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

DFT Protocol for Adsorption Energy on 2D Materials

This protocol is adapted from studies on adsorption energetics on monolayer transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDs) and tin disulfide [7] [17].

• System Setup: Construct a periodic supercell of the 2D material (e.g., MoSâ‚‚, SnSâ‚‚). A vacuum layer of at least 15 Ã… is added along the z-direction to prevent spurious interactions between periodic images.
• Geometry Optimization: Relax the atomic structure of the pristine substrate until the Hellmann-Feynman forces on all atoms are below 0.01 eV/Ã…. Common settings include:
  • Functional: A van der Waals-corrected functional (e.g., revPBE-vdW, vdW-DF2) is crucial for physisorption systems like Hâ‚‚ on SnSâ‚‚ [17]. GGA-PBE is often used for initial scans and charge analysis.
  • Basis Set: A plane-wave basis set with a kinetic energy cutoff of 400-650 eV.
  • k-points: A Γ-centered k-point grid (e.g., 4×4×1 for a 4×4 supercell).
  • Pseudopotential: Projector augmented-wave (PAW) pseudopotentials.
• Adsorbate Placement: Introduce the adsorbate molecule (e.g., a metal adatom, Hâ‚‚) at various high-symmetry sites on the optimized surface.
• Adsorption Energy Calculation: For each configuration, re-optimize the geometry and compute the adsorption energy (Eads) using: *Eads = E(total) - E(substrate) - E(adsorbate)* where E(total) is the energy of the combined system, E(substrate) is the energy of the pristine substrate, and E(adsorbate) is the energy of the isolated adsorbate in the gas phase. A more negative E_ads indicates stronger binding.
• Post-Processing: Perform Bader charge analysis to quantify charge transfer and compute the electronic density of states (DOS) to understand electronic structure modifications induced by adsorption [7] [17].

High-Accuracy Protocol via Multilevel Embedding

This protocol is based on the autoSKZCAM framework for achieving CCSD(T)-level accuracy on ionic surfaces [83].

• Initial DFT Screening: Use DFT with a standard functional (e.g., PBE) to identify multiple candidate adsorption configurations and their geometries on the surface of interest (e.g., MgO(001)).
• Cluster Generation: For the most promising configurations, cut a finite cluster from the surface that contains the adsorption site and its immediate chemical environment.
• Embedding Setup: Surround the cluster with a lattice of point charges to accurately represent the long-range electrostatic potential of the extended ionic surface.
• High-Level Single-Point Energy Calculation: Perform a CCSD(T) calculation on the embedded cluster to obtain a highly accurate energy for the adsorbed and clean surface systems.
• Adsorption Enthalpy Computation: The adsorption enthalpy (Hads) is partitioned into contributions computed with different methods. The framework uses CCSD(T) for the core interaction energy and incorporates corrections for geometry relaxation, phonons, and long-range dispersion using cheaper DFT or other methods, combining them to yield a final, accurate Hads.

Machine Learning Potential Development and Application

This protocol outlines the creation and use of NNPs like EMFF-2025 [85].

• Training Database Construction:
  • Use DFT-based molecular dynamics (MD) or enhanced sampling methods to generate a diverse set of atomic configurations for the target chemical space (e.g., C, H, N, O elements for energetic materials).
  • For each configuration, compute the total energy, atomic forces, and stress tensors using DFT. This constitutes the reference database.
• Model Training:
  • Employ a deep learning architecture, such as the Deep Potential (DP) scheme, to train a neural network.
  • The network learns to map the local atomic environment (described by descriptors like atom-centered symmetry functions) to the atomic energy.
  • The total energy of a configuration is the sum of all atomic energies, and forces are obtained via automatic differentiation.
• Model Validation:
  • Evaluate the trained model on a held-out test set of configurations.
  • Key metrics are the MAE in energy (eV/atom) and force (eV/Ã…) predictions compared to the DFT reference data.
• Deployment for Simulation:
  • Integrate the validated NNP into an MD code.
  • Perform large-scale MD simulations (e.g., of thermal decomposition) at a computational cost orders of magnitude lower than comparable DFT-MD, but with nearly the same accuracy.

Visualization of Method Selection Workflow

This flowchart provides a logical pathway for researchers to select the most appropriate computational method based on their system's size and their accuracy requirements, guiding them from problem definition to a suitable methodological class.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Solutions

Table 3: Key Computational Tools and Frameworks

Tool/Solution	Function	Applicable Context
VASP	A widely used software package for performing ab initio quantum mechanical calculations using DFT.	General-purpose materials modeling, including geometry optimization, DOS, and MD [17].
autoSKZCAM Framework	An open-source, automated framework that applies high-level cWFT to surfaces of ionic materials via multilevel embedding.	Achieving gold-standard accuracy for adsorption enthalpies on materials like MgO and TiOâ‚‚ [83].
Deep Potential (DP) Generator	A framework for constructing accurate and efficient neural network potentials using active learning.	Developing general-purpose ML potentials for large-scale MD simulations of complex systems [85].
Transformer-based Multi-feature Model	A deep learning framework that integrates structural, electronic, and kinetic descriptors to predict adsorption mechanisms.	Rapid prediction of CO adsorption energies and mechanisms on metal oxides without DFT [84].
Kinetic Monte Carlo (kMC)	A stochastic simulation method to model the time evolution of processes like adsorption, desorption, and diffusion.	Studying surface coverage and kinetics of processes like Hâ‚‚ adsorption on SnSâ‚‚ at varying T and P [17].
Bader Charge Analysis	A method to partition the electron density of a system to assign charges to individual atoms.	Quantifying charge transfer between an adsorbate and a substrate, a key metric in adsorption studies [7] [17].

The computational modeling of adsorption energies and related properties is a field characterized by rapid innovation, driven by the need for both high accuracy and computational efficiency. While DFT remains an indispensable tool for initial screening and trend analysis, its limitations in predictive accuracy are being addressed by two parallel advancements. First, sophisticated embedding methods like autoSKZCAM are making gold-standard cWFT methodologies practically accessible for complex surface chemistry problems, providing reliable benchmarks and resolving longstanding debates. Second, the rise of machine learning, through both neural network potentials and descriptor-based deep learning models, is dramatically accelerating the exploration of material spaces and reaction dynamics, offering near-first-principles accuracy at a fraction of the computational cost. The choice of method is not one-size-fits-all but must be guided by the specific research question, the size and nature of the system, and the required level of accuracy. As these methods continue to mature and integrate, they promise to significantly accelerate the discovery and optimization of next-generation materials for energy, catalysis, and computing.

The accurate prediction of adsorption and transition state energies represents a cornerstone in the advancement of materials science and drug development. Computational models provide powerful tools for estimating these energies, yet their predictive validity must be firmly established through rigorous experimental benchmarking. This creates a critical bridge between theoretical chemistry and practical application, ensuring that molecular simulations reliably mirror real-world behavior. The integration of experimentally determined thermodynamic and kinetic data with computational predictions forms a closed loop of hypothesis, experimentation, and validation that drives innovation in catalyst design, sensor development, and pharmaceutical research.

The fundamental challenge lies in the fact that force fields and other computational parameters are often derived from limited datasets, raising questions about their transferability to novel molecular systems and interfaces. Without experimental validation, calculated energies remain speculative. This guide details the methodologies for generating benchmark experimental data and using it to assess and refine computational predictions, with a specific focus on peptide and protein adsorption behavior—a domain critically important for biomedical engineering and bionanotechnology [86].

Fundamental Theoretical Concepts

Chemical Kinetics and Transition State Theory

Chemical kinetics investigates the rates of chemical reactions and the factors that influence them, while Transition State Theory (TST) provides a conceptual and mathematical framework for understanding the reaction pathways that reactants traverse to become products [87]. TST posits the existence of a high-energy, unstable configuration known as the transition state, which acts as a bottleneck for the reaction.

The theory bridges the microscopic world of molecular interactions with macroscopic observables like reaction rates. Its foundation in statistical mechanics allows for the calculation of reaction rate constants based on the energy barrier separating reactants and products.

Key Mathematical Formulations

The rate of a reaction is exponentially dependent on the energy barrier, as described by the Arrhenius equation: [ k = A e^{-Ea/RT} ] where ( k ) is the rate constant, ( A ) is the pre-exponential factor, ( Ea ) is the activation energy, ( R ) is the gas constant, and ( T ) is the temperature [87].

Within the TST framework, the rate constant is expressed as: [ k = \frac{kB T}{h} e^{-\Delta G^{\ddagger}/RT} ] where ( kB ) is Boltzmann's constant, ( h ) is Planck's constant, and ( \Delta G^{\ddagger} ) is the Gibbs free energy of activation. This directly links the kinetics of the process to its underlying thermodynamics.

Adsorption Free Energy as a Key Parameter

In adsorption phenomena, the standard state adsorption free energy, ( \Delta G^{0}{ads} ), serves as the primary thermodynamic parameter characterizing the overall driving force for a molecule to adsorb onto a surface [86]. A more negative ( \Delta G^{0}{ads} ) indicates a more spontaneous and favorable adsorption process.

For peptide-surface interactions, ( \Delta G^{0}_{ads} ) represents the composite result of various individual interactions, including van der Waals forces, hydrogen bonding, and electrostatic effects. Determining this value experimentally for well-defined systems provides the essential benchmark data required to validate the force fields used in molecular simulations to calculate the same quantity [86].

Experimental Benchmarking Methodologies

A Model System for Peptide-Surface Interactions

To generate a consistent and fundamental dataset, researchers have employed a host-guest peptide model in the form of TGTG-X-GTGT, where G and T are glycine and threonine, and X is a variable guest residue [86]. This design is strategic:

• Glycine (G): Its small hydrogen side chain is non-chiral and helps inhibit the formation of secondary structure, simplifying the interpretation of adsorption behavior.
• Threonine (T): Its side chain enhances the aqueous solubility of the peptide.
• Zwitterionic end-groups: Further promote solubility in water-based buffers.
• Variable residue (X): Allows for the systematic investigation of the adsorption contribution of individual amino acid residues.

The adsorbent surfaces are functionalized alkanethiol Self-Assembled Monolayers (SAMs) on gold, with a structure of HS-(CH₂)₁₁-R [86]. These SAMs present a well-ordered, dense layer of specific functional groups, mimicking a wide range of polymer surfaces.

Table 1: Alkanethiol SAM Surfaces and Their Polymer Analogs

Terminal Group (R)	Surface Character	Polymer Analog
-OH	Hydrophilic, H-bonding	Hydrogels, Chitin
-CH₃	Hydrophobic	Polyethylene, Polypropylene
-COOH	Acidic, Anionic	Polyelectrolytes
-NHâ‚‚	Basic, Cationic	Polyamines
-COOCH₃	Ester	Poly(methyl acrylate), Polyesters
-NHCOCH₃	Amide	Nylons
-OC₆H₅	Aromatic	Polystyrene
-OCH₂CF₃	Hydrophobic	Fluorinated polymers
-(O-CH₂-CH₂)₃OH (EG₃-OH)	Anti-fouling	PEG-based polymers

Detailed Experimental Protocol

Surface Preparation and Characterization

• SAM Formation: Cleaned gold substrates are incubated in 1 mM solutions of the respective alkanethiols in absolute ethanol for a minimum of 16 hours. Special conditions (e.g., basic pH for amine-terminated thiols) are used to ensure correct monolayer formation [86].
• Surface Characterization: The quality of the SAM is confirmed through a battery of techniques:
  • Contact Angle Goniometry: Verifies surface wettability and the presence of the expected functional groups.
  • Ellipsometry: Measures the thickness of the monolayer, confirming a densely packed structure.
  • X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS): Determines the elemental composition of the surface, providing chemical evidence of successful functionalization [86].

Quantifying Adsorption via Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR)

• Experimental Setup: The characterized SAM surface is mounted as the sensor chip in an SPR instrument. A solution of the host-guest peptide is flowed over the surface in a controlled buffer.
• Data Collection: The SPR instrument monitors the change in the refractive index at the sensor surface in real-time as peptide molecules adsorb, producing a sensorgram (a plot of response units vs. time) [86].
• Isotherm Generation: The experiment is repeated at different peptide concentrations. The equilibrium adsorption level at each concentration is used to construct an adsorption isotherm.
• Determining ( \Delta G^{0}{ads} ): The adsorption isotherm is fitted to an appropriate model (e.g., Langmuir) to extract the equilibrium constant, which is then used to calculate the standard state adsorption free energy using the fundamental relationship: [ \Delta G^{0}{ads} = -RT \ln(K{eq}) ] This process is repeated for each of the 12 guest residues and 9 SAM surfaces, generating a database of 108 unique ( \Delta G^{0}{ads} ) values [86].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 2: Key Reagents and Materials for Peptide Adsorption Studies

Reagent/Material	Function in the Experiment	Specific Example
Alkanethiols	Form the well-defined model surface (SAM).	HS-(CH₂)₁₁-OH, HS-(CH₂)₁₁-COOH [86]
Host-Guest Peptides	Act as the adsorbate; the variable residue 'X' probes specific surface interactions.	TGTG-X-GTGT (X = Lys, Arg, Phe, etc.) [86]
Gold Substrates	Provide a flat, conductive base for SAM formation.	Biacore SIA Au kit [86]
SPR Instrument	Label-free, real-time monitoring of adsorption kinetics and equilibrium.	Biacore X instrument [86]
TGA Instrument	Measures mass change due to adsorption/desorption, used in other adsorption studies.	Isothermal/Non-isothermal TGA [88]
XRD Instrument	Characterizes the crystallinity and phase of solid sorbents.	Philips PW1730 XRD [88]

Bridging Theory and Experiment

The Validation Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the iterative cycle of computational prediction and experimental validation.

Data Integration and Force Field Validation

The database of 108 experimentally determined ( \Delta G^{0}{ads} ) values provides a rich resource for validation [86]. The calculated ( \Delta G^{0}{ads} ) from molecular simulation is directly compared to its experimental counterpart for each peptide-surface combination.

• Quantitative Assessment: The agreement is typically evaluated using statistical measures like the root-mean-square error (RMSE) and linear correlation coefficients (R²) between the calculated and experimental datasets.
• Qualitative Trends: Beyond numerical agreement, the validated model must also reproduce correct qualitative trends, such as the increased affinity of acidic residues for amine-terminated surfaces and vice versa.
• Outcome: A force field that successfully predicts the benchmark data is considered validated for simulating peptide-surface interactions. Significant discrepancies indicate a need to re-parameterize the force field to better represent the underlying atomic-level interactions [86].

Advanced Applications: Kinetics and Activation Energy

While thermodynamics (( \Delta G^{0}{ads} )) describes the favorability of adsorption, kinetics describes its speed. The activation energy (( Ea )) for adsorption is the energy barrier that must be overcome for the process to occur and is directly linked to the transition state energy.

Experimental Kinetics from Thermogravimetric Analysis

In studies of gas adsorption on solid sorbents, non-isothermal Thermogravimetric Analysis (TGA) is a key technique for probing kinetics [88].

• Method: The sorbent is heated at a constant rate under an adsorbate gas (e.g., COâ‚‚), and its mass change is continuously monitored [88].
• Kinetic Modeling: The mass gain data is fitted to various kinetic models (e.g., pore diffusion, chemical reaction). The model with the highest correlation coefficient (e.g., R² > 0.95) is identified as the governing mechanism [88].
• Determining Activation Energy: The Arrhenius equation is applied to the kinetic data, allowing for the calculation of the activation energy for the adsorption process. For example, the activation energy for COâ‚‚ adsorption on potassium stannate (Kâ‚‚SnO₃) was determined to be 73.55 kJ/mol [88].

The following diagram outlines the workflow for determining kinetic parameters and activation energy from TGA data.

Linking Kinetic and Theoretical Data

The experimentally determined activation energy serves as a critical benchmark for validating the energy barrier predicted by transition state theory calculations. A computational model that can accurately predict both the thermodynamic (( \Delta G^{0}{ads} )) and kinetic (( Ea )) parameters is considered highly robust and reliable for predictive design.

The pathway from theoretical calculation to experimental validation is essential for transforming computational models from speculative tools into reliable instruments for prediction and discovery. The methodologies detailed herein—using well-defined model systems like host-guest peptides and functionalized SAMs, employing sensitive techniques like SPR and TGA for quantification, and rigorously comparing outcomes to computational predictions—provide a robust framework for researchers. By systematically closing the loop between theory and experiment, scientists can develop and refine force fields with high confidence, ultimately accelerating the design of novel materials, sorbents, and therapeutic agents with tailored interfacial properties.

The accurate determination of desorption energy and activation barriers is foundational to research on adsorption energy and transition state energy relationships. These parameters are critical for predicting the kinetics of surface processes in diverse fields, including heterogeneous catalysis and drug development. However, experimental and computational methods for measuring these energies are susceptible to significant uncertainties. These errors can obscure the fundamental relationships between adsorption and transition state energies, potentially leading to incorrect mechanistic conclusions and inefficient material or drug design. This guide provides an in-depth analysis of the primary sources of error in desorption energy and activation barrier quantification, offering detailed methodologies for their mitigation to enhance the reliability of research data.

Theoretical Foundations of Desorption and Activation Barriers

Desorption kinetics are fundamentally governed by Transition State Theory (TST), which explains the reaction rates of elementary chemical reactions. TST posits that reactant molecules must pass through a high-energy, activated transition state complex to form products. The theory assumes a quasi-equilibrium exists between the reactants and these transition state complexes [1].

The standard Gibbs energy of activation (ΔG‡) is the key energy barrier in TST and is related to the reaction rate constant through the Eyring equation. This relationship incorporates the standard enthalpy of activation (ΔH‡) and the standard entropy of activation (ΔS‡), providing a more mechanistically insightful alternative to the empirical Arrhenius equation [1]. Within the context of a broader thesis, understanding the relationship between the adsorption energy of a stable intermediate and the energy of its transition state (a key activation barrier) is paramount. The uncertainty in quantifying these energies directly impacts the validation of theoretical models, such as Brønsted-Evans-Polanyi (BEP) relations, which postulate linear relationships between adsorption energies and activation barriers for families of similar reactions.

Errors in determining desorption energy and activation barriers can be categorized into experimental and computational sources. A proper understanding requires distinguishing between accuracy (closeness to the true value) and precision (reproducibility of the measurement) [89].

Experimental Measurement Errors

Experimental techniques for measuring adsorption and desorption, such as gravimetric analysis and the water displacement method, are prone to systematic and random errors.

A. Gravimetric Sorption Analysis: Gravimetric analyzers using a magnetic-suspension balance are powerful tools but introduce specific uncertainties.

• Force-Transmission Error (FTE): This is a systematic error originating from the magnetic-suspension coupling. Its impact is more significant for materials with low adsorption capacity. For instance, on a quasi non-porous material, the FTE can account for approximately 22% of the observed adsorption capacity near the dew-point pressure [90].
• Key Uncertainty Contributions: The major sources of uncertainty in gravimetric measurements are [90]:
  • For porous materials: The mass and volume of the adsorbent sample, and the assumption for the density of the adsorbed fluid.
  • For non-porous materials: The weighing values of the balance, the density of the gas-phase fluid, and the volume of the non-porous material.

B. Water Displacement Method: This method, commonly used for gas desorption experiments, can be inadequate for measuring low desorption rates due to fluid binding forces and tubing deformation.

• Measurement Inaccuracy: Conventional devices can struggle to quantify gas desorbing at low rates, leading to a significant underestimation of total desorbed gas. One study found that conventional devices measured residual gas percentages of 30% to 50%, while an improved device designed to mitigate these errors recorded residual percentages of only 10% to 25% [91]. This indicates that conventional devices can fail to account for a substantial portion of desorbed gas, directly impacting calculated energies.
• Root Cause: At low desorption rates, the pressure increase in the system may be insufficient to overcome the fluidic constraints (e.g., a pressure of at least 71.18 Pa is needed to push gas into a graduated cylinder in a conventional setup), causing gas to accumulate in soft silicone pipelines instead of being measured [91].

Table 1: Quantitative Error Comparison in Water Displacement Methods

Device Type	Key Design Flaw	Measured Residual Gas %	Systematic Error Source
Conventional Device	Soft, large-volume silicone tubing; gas outlet below liquid level	30% - 50% [91]	Fluid binding forces; pipeline deformation
Improved Device	Slender, rigid connecting pipe; gas outlet above liquid level	10% - 25% [91]	Minimized fluid constraints and deformation

Computational and Modeling Uncertainties

Computational chemistry provides powerful tools for estimating activation barriers and adsorption energies, but the results are subject to parametric uncertainties.

A. Density Functional Theory (DFT) Errors: DFT is widely used to calculate adsorption and activation energies, but it has inherent inaccuracies.

• The typical error for DFT calculations of surface adsorption and reaction energies is around 0.2 eV or more when compared to benchmark experimental measurements [92].
• Since reaction rates depend exponentially on activation barriers, an error of this magnitude can lead to orders-of-magnitude uncertainty in predicted rates [92].

B. Parametric Uncertainty in Microkinetic Models: Microkinetic models (MKMs) rely on input parameters from DFT and empirical relations.

• Linear Scaling Relations (LSRs) and BEP Relations: These relations, used to reduce computational cost, introduce error from both the underlying DFT data and the regression process itself. The errors from regression are often on the same order as the DFT errors (~0.2 eV) [92].
• Impact on Programmable Catalysis: For emerging fields like programmable catalysis, parametric uncertainty can affect predictions of dynamic rate enhancement. However, variance-based global sensitivity analysis can identify which parameters (e.g., specific LSR or BEP parameters) contribute most to output uncertainty, guiding efforts to reduce it [92].

Table 2: Key Computational Parameters and Associated Uncertainties

Parameter / Relation	Purpose	Typical Uncertainty	Impact on Model Prediction
DFT-Calculated Energies	Provide fundamental adsorption/reaction energies	~0.2 eV [92]	Orders-of-magnitude error in rates; shifts in activity volcanoes
Linear Scaling Relations (LSRs)	Relate adsorption energies of different species	~0.2 eV (from regression) [92]	Incorrect identification of optimal catalytic materials
Brønsted-Evans-Polanyi (BEP)	Relate reaction activation energies to thermicity	~0.2 eV (from regression) [92]	Errors in predicted reaction pathways and selectivity

Detailed Experimental Protocols for Error Mitigation

Protocol: Improved Water Displacement Method for Gas Desorption

This protocol is designed to minimize errors in measuring gas desorption from porous media, such as coal or synthetic materials, for more accurate desorption energy calculation [91].

I. Key Research Reagent Solutions Table 3: Essential Materials for Water Displacement Desorption Experiments

Item	Function/Brief Explanation
Coal or Porous Sample	The adsorbent material under study; particle size must be carefully controlled and documented.
Adsorbate Gas (e.g., CHâ‚„, COâ‚‚)	The gas whose adsorption/desorption characteristics are being investigated.
Improved Desorption Device	Features a slender, rigid connecting pipe and a gas outlet positioned above the liquid level to bypass fluidic constraints [91].
Vacuum Pump	Used to degas the sample and system prior to the adsorption phase of the experiment.
Constant Temperature Water Bath	Maintains a stable, isothermal environment throughout the experiment to prevent temperature-induced volume fluctuations.
High-Accuracy Pressure Sensor	Monitors pressure in the sample tank during adsorption and desorption phases.

II. Methodology

• Sample Preparation: Crush and sieve the coal or porous sample to a specific particle size range (e.g., 0.18-0.25 mm, 0.25-0.38 mm). Dry the sample thoroughly to remove inherent moisture.
• System Evacuation: Place the sample in the coal sample tank. Use the vacuum pump to evacuate the entire system (sample tank and desorption device) for a sufficient duration (e.g., 12 hours) to ensure complete degassing.
• Gas Adsorption: Introduce the adsorbate gas (e.g., methane) into the coal sample tank to a predetermined equilibrium pressure (e.g., 1.0 MPa, 2.0 MPa). Maintain this pressure until adsorption equilibrium is achieved.
• Isothermal Desorption Measurement:
  • Ensure the constant temperature water bath is maintaining the target temperature (e.g., 30°C).
  • Open the valve connecting the coal sample tank to the improved desorption device.
  • Record the volume of gas displaced from the device at precise time intervals initially (e.g., every 1 min), increasing the interval as the desorption rate slows.
  • Continue measurements until the volume reading shows no significant change over a prolonged period (e.g., 100-200 minutes). The use of the improved device ensures that low-rate desorption gas is captured, unlike in conventional setups.

III. Data Processing and Error Mitigation

• The gas desorption percentage is calculated as the proportion of gas volume desorbed relative to the gas volume initially adsorbed by the sample [91].
• The residual gas percentage is a key indicator of measurement completeness; the improved device should yield significantly lower values (10-25%) than conventional methods [91].
• The desorption data can be fitted to kinetic models to extract the desorption energy, with the lower residual gas percentage leading to a more reliable value.

Protocol: Uncertainty Analysis for Gravimetric Sorption Measurements

This protocol outlines a procedure for quantifying and analyzing uncertainty in adsorption/desorption measurements obtained using a magnetic-suspension balance [90].

I. Methodology

• System Calibration:
  • Zero Offset Check: Before measurements, check the zero reading of the balance with the magnetic-suspension coupling in the tare position (ZP). Re-zero the instrument if possible, or record the offset for data correction [89].
  • Temperature and Pressure Calibration: Calibrate the platinum resistance thermometer and pressure sensor against certified standards.
  • Force-Transmission Error (FTE) Investigation: Systematically investigate the FTE of the magnetic-suspension coupling across the intended operating conditions.

• Adsorption Measurement:

  • Perform measurements at stable temperature and pressure conditions, ensuring the instrument has reached thermal equilibrium to avoid lag time errors [89].
  • Record weighing values in the zero position (ZP), measuring position 1 (MP1, with adsorbent), and measuring position 2 (MP2, with adsorbent and density sinker) to allow for simultaneous density measurement and FTE correction [90].

• Uncertainty Propagation:

  • Use established equations for adsorption determination that incorporate the FTE correction [90].
  • Perform a detailed uncertainty analysis that accounts for the major contributors: sample mass and volume, fluid density assumptions, and weighing values.

Visualization of Error Analysis Workflows

Error Sources in Desorption Energy Quantification

Diagram: Error Mitigation Protocol for Desorption Experiments

Error Mitigation Protocol for Desorption Experiments

A rigorous approach to error analysis is non-negotiable for producing reliable data on desorption energies and activation barriers. As detailed in this guide, uncertainties arise from both experimental limitations—such as fluidic constraints in water displacement methods and force-transmission errors in gravimetry—and computational approximations, notably the ~0.2 eV uncertainty in DFT-derived parameters. Effectively framing research within the context of adsorption and transition state energy relationships requires proactively identifying these error sources through the protocols and visualizations provided. By implementing improved experimental apparatus, applying systematic correction factors, and performing thorough uncertainty propagation, researchers can significantly enhance the accuracy of their findings. This diligence ensures that conclusions about fundamental energetic relationships and the performance of designed catalysts or materials are built upon a solid and verifiable foundation.

The pursuit of high-throughput, quantitative prediction in catalysis and sorbent science represents a paradigm shift in materials discovery, fundamentally transforming research methodologies from traditional trial-and-error approaches to data-driven, predictive science. This transformation is particularly crucial in the context of adsorption energy and transition state energy relationships, which serve as key descriptors for predicting catalytic activity and selectivity according to the Sabatier principle. The integration of advanced computational frameworks with machine learning (ML) methodologies has accelerated the screening of vast material spaces, enabling researchers to identify promising candidates with unprecedented speed and accuracy. This whitepaper examines the emerging trends and future outlook in this rapidly evolving field, focusing on the synergistic relationship between theoretical foundations, computational advancements, and experimental validation that is paving the path toward truly predictive materials design.

The fundamental challenge in establishing quantitative structure-property relationships lies in the accurate and efficient calculation of key parameters such as the global minimum adsorption energy (GMAE) and transition state energies across diverse chemical spaces. Traditional approaches relying solely on density functional theory (DFT) calculations, while accurate, remain computationally prohibitive for large-scale screening. The emergence of multi-modal machine learning frameworks and increasingly comprehensive benchmark datasets is addressing this bottleneck, creating new opportunities for high-throughput prediction that balances computational efficiency with quantum-mechanical accuracy. These developments hold particular significance for researchers and drug development professionals seeking to optimize molecular interactions and reaction pathways through precise control of energy landscapes.

Theoretical Foundations: From Transition State Theory to Quantitative Prediction

Transition state theory (TST) provides the fundamental theoretical framework for understanding and predicting reaction rates in chemical systems. Originally developed simultaneously in 1935 by Henry Eyring and by Meredith Gwynne Evans and Michael Polanyi, TST explains reaction rates by focusing on the high-energy transition state that reactants must achieve to become products [1]. This theory posits that for a reaction to occur, reactants must not only collide but also achieve a specific high-energy configuration known as the transition state or activated complex, which represents the apex of the energy barrier separating reactants from products [2].

The key quantitative relationship in TST is expressed through the Eyring equation, which provides a theoretical foundation for calculating rate constants [1] [93]:

Where k is the rate constant, k_B is the Boltzmann constant, T is absolute temperature, h is Planck's constant, ΔG‡ is the Gibbs free energy of activation, and R is the gas constant [93]. The Gibbs free energy of activation (ΔG‡) encompasses both enthalpy (ΔH‡) and entropy (ΔS‡) components through the relationship ΔG‡ = ΔH‡ - TΔS‡ [93]. This equation connects macroscopic kinetic parameters to microscopic molecular properties via statistical mechanics, offering a more sophisticated description of reaction rates than the empirical Arrhenius equation [2].

For adsorption processes and catalytic reactions, the adsorption energy of an adsorbate on a catalyst surface serves as a crucial descriptor for determining reactivity and selectivity [94]. According to the Sabatier principle, the highest catalytic activity of a material frequently resides at the optimal adsorption energy of the key reaction intermediates [94]. The intricate relationship between adsorption energy and transition state energy establishes the foundation for predicting catalytic performance, making the accurate calculation of these parameters essential for rational catalyst design.

Table 1: Key Theoretical Parameters in Reaction Kinetics and Adsorption

Parameter	Symbol	Theoretical Significance	Relationship to Reaction Rate
Activation Energy	E_a	Energy barrier for reaction	Higher E_a leads to slower rates
Gibbs Free Energy of Activation	ΔG‡	Free energy difference between transition state and reactants	k ∝ exp(-ΔG‡/RT)
Adsorption Energy	E_ads	Energy change upon adsorbate binding	Determines surface coverage and reactivity
Global Minimum Adsorption Energy	GMAE	Most stable adsorption configuration	Correlates with catalytic activity via Sabatier principle

Emerging Trends in High-Throughput Screening

Large-Scale Datasets for Expanded Chemical Space Exploration

The development of comprehensive, high-quality datasets represents a foundational trend in high-throughput quantitative prediction. These datasets enable the training and validation of machine learning models across broad chemical spaces, moving beyond limited, domain-specific applications to more universal predictive capabilities.

The Open DAC 2025 (ODAC25) dataset exemplifies this trend, comprising nearly 70 million DFT single-point calculations for COâ‚‚, Hâ‚‚O, Nâ‚‚, and Oâ‚‚ adsorption in 15,000 metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) [9] [95]. This dataset significantly expands upon its predecessor (ODAC23) through several key improvements: inclusion of functionalized MOFs with both linker and open-metal site functionalization, incorporation of high-energy configurations derived from Grand Canonical Monte Carlo (GCMC) simulations, and enhanced accuracy of DFT calculations through improved k-point sampling and re-relaxation of empty MOF structures [9]. These advances address critical limitations in earlier datasets and provide a more realistic foundation for sorbent screening in direct air capture applications.

Similarly, the Open Catalyst 2025 (OC25) dataset advances the field by incorporating explicit representations of solvents and ions, enabling more realistic simulations of solid-liquid interfaces [96]. With 7.8 million DFT calculations across 1.5 million unique explicit solvent environments covering 88 unique elements, OC25 establishes a new benchmark for interatomic potential development in heterogeneous catalysis and energy storage research [96]. The inclusion of off-equilibrium geometries generated through high-temperature molecular dynamics simulations ensures broader sampling of the potential energy surface, significantly improving ML model robustness and transferability.

Multi-Modal Machine Learning Architectures

Advanced machine learning architectures that integrate multiple data modalities have emerged as powerful tools for predicting adsorption and transition state energies without exhaustive computational sampling. These approaches directly address the challenge of identifying global minimum configurations across complex energy landscapes.

The AdsMT (Multi-modal Transformer) framework represents a cutting-edge approach to predicting the global minimum adsorption energy (GMAE) based on surface graphs and adsorbate feature vectors without requiring site-binding information [94]. This architecture effectively captures intricate relationships between adsorbates and surface atoms through a cross-attention mechanism, avoiding the enumeration of adsorption configurations [94]. The model consists of three key components: a graph encoder for processing catalyst surface structures, a vector encoder for representing adsorbate features, and a cross-modal encoder that integrates information from both modalities to predict GMAE values [94].

This multi-modal approach demonstrates exceptional performance, achieving mean absolute errors of 0.09 eV, 0.14 eV, and 0.39 eV across three diverse benchmark datasets (OCD-GMAE, Alloy-GMAE, and FG-GMAE) [94]. Beyond accurate energy prediction, the cross-attention weights provide interpretable insights by identifying the most energetically favorable adsorption sites, enhancing the trustworthiness of predictions through integrated uncertainty quantification [94].

Diagram 1: AdsMT Multi-modal Transformer Architecture for GMAE Prediction

Explicit Solvent and Ion Environment Modeling

A significant trend in high-throughput prediction is the move beyond gas-phase approximations to incorporate explicit solvent and ion effects, which critically influence interfacial phenomena in practical catalytic and sorbent applications. The OC25 dataset pioneers this approach by including detailed solvent/ion environments, enabling simulation of previously inaccessible interfacial processes such as solvation effects, electric double layers, and ion-mediated surface processes [96].

This advancement allows for the calculation of pseudo solvation energy (ΔE_solv), defined as the difference between adsorption energies in solvated and vacuum environments [96]:

This metric quantifies the solvent influence on adsorbate binding, providing crucial insights for designing catalysts and sorbents for operation in complex environments such as electrochemical cells or natural systems [96]. State-of-the-art graph neural network baselines trained on OC25 demonstrate remarkable performance in predicting these complex interactions, with models achieving energy mean absolute errors as low as 0.060 eV and force MAEs of 0.009 eV/Ã… [96].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

High-Throughput Computational Screening Framework

The integration of machine learning with traditional computational methods has created sophisticated workflows for high-throughput screening of materials. The following protocol outlines a comprehensive approach for quantitative prediction of adsorption and transition state energies:

• Dataset Curation and Expansion: Begin with established datasets (ODAC25, OC25) or generate custom datasets through systematic DFT calculations. For MOF studies, implement validation checks using tools like MOFChecker to ensure structural integrity [9]. For surface catalysis, ensure diverse elemental composition and coverage of relevant adsorption sites.

• Accurate DFT Reference Calculations: Employ high-quality DFT calculations with carefully converged parameters. For ODAC25, this involved upgrading calculations through a correction procedure that applied energy errors of initial and final frames to all frames in the trajectory, reducing convergence errors to ~0.01 eV at less than 1% of the computational cost of naïve re-calculation [9]. Use tight electronic convergence criteria (EDIFF=10⁻⁴ eV for training, 10⁻⁶ eV for validation/test) and exclude force "drift" outliers (>1 eV/Ã…) to ensure data quality [96].

• Machine Learning Model Selection and Training: Implement appropriate ML architectures based on the specific prediction task:

  • For GMAE prediction without site information: Utilize multi-modal transformers (AdsMT) with cross-attention mechanisms [94].
  • For force fields in complex environments: Employ graph neural networks (eSEN, UMA) trained on diverse datasets with explicit solvent representations [96].
  • For small datasets: Apply transfer learning strategies to improve performance, such as pre-training on larger datasets before fine-tuning on domain-specific data [94].

• Model Validation and Uncertainty Quantification: Evaluate model performance using appropriate metrics (MAE for energies and forces) and implement uncertainty quantification to assess prediction reliability. For AdsMT, this involved integrating calibrated uncertainty estimation for trustworthy GMAE prediction [94].

• High-Throughput Screening and Validation: Deploy trained models to screen large material databases, followed by DFT validation of promising candidates to confirm predictions and identify the most promising materials for experimental synthesis and testing.

Table 2: Performance Benchmarks of ML Models on Recent Datasets

Model	Dataset	Energy MAE (eV)	Force MAE (eV/Ã…)	Specialized Metric
AdsMT	OCD-GMAE	0.09	-	GMAE Prediction
AdsMT	Alloy-GMAE	0.14	-	GMAE Prediction
AdsMT	FG-GMAE	0.39	-	GMAE Prediction
eSEN-M-d.	OC25	0.060	0.009	Solvation Energy MAE: 0.04 eV
eSEN-S-cons.	OC25	0.105	0.015	Solvation Energy MAE: 0.08 eV
UMA-S-1.1	OC25	0.170	0.027	Solvation Energy MAE: 0.13 eV

Advanced Sampling and Global Minimum Search

Identifying global minimum adsorption configurations remains a fundamental challenge in quantitative prediction. Traditional approaches rely on heuristic searches or brute-force sampling of configuration space, which are computationally expensive. Emerging methodologies combine machine learning with enhanced sampling techniques:

• ML-Accelerated Global Optimization: Implement protocols that employ on-the-fly ML potentials trained on iterative DFT calculations to search for the most stable adsorption structures [94]. This approach significantly reduces the number of required DFT calculations while minimizing reliance on prior expertise.

• Off-Equilibrium Sampling: Generate diverse configurations through brief high-temperature (~1000K) molecular dynamics simulations to ensure sampling of force-distributed, off-equilibrium states [96]. This approach reduces redundancy from exclusively relaxed structures and promotes ML model robustness.

• Multi-Component Configuration Generation: For adsorption in complex environments, use Grand Canonical Monte Carlo (GCMC) simulations to identify high-energy, multi-component adsorption configurations that might be missed through conventional sampling [9].

Diagram 2: High-Throughput Screening with Active Learning

The experimental and computational workflow for high-throughput quantitative prediction relies on several key resources and methodologies. The following table outlines essential components of the modern computational scientist's toolkit for adsorption and transition state energy prediction.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Resources

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Solutions	Function and Application
Benchmark Datasets	ODAC25 (Open DAC 2025)	Provides nearly 70 million DFT calculations for COâ‚‚, Hâ‚‚O, Nâ‚‚, and Oâ‚‚ adsorption in 15,000 MOFs for training and validating ML models [9] [95].
Benchmark Datasets	OC25 (Open Catalyst 2025)	Offers 7.8 million DFT calculations with explicit solvent and ion environments for modeling solid-liquid interfaces [96].
Benchmark Datasets	GMAE Benchmark Datasets (OCD-GMAE, Alloy-GMAE, FG-GMAE)	Curated datasets for global minimum adsorption energy prediction across diverse catalyst surfaces and adsorbates [94].
ML Architectures	Multi-modal Transformers (AdsMT)	Predicts GMAE based on surface graphs and adsorbate features without site-binding information [94].
ML Architectures	Graph Neural Networks (eSEN, UMA, EquiformerV2)	Provides state-of-the-art force fields for energy and force prediction in complex chemical environments [9] [96].
Validation Tools	MOFChecker	Algorithm for validating and correcting MOF structural files to ensure data quality [9].
Simulation Methods	Grand Canonical Monte Carlo (GCMC)	Generates diverse adsorption configurations for training data generation [9].
Simulation Methods	Ab Initio Molecular Dynamics (AIMD)	Samples off-equilibrium geometries for improved model robustness [96].
Quantum Chemistry	Density Functional Theory (DFT)	Provides high-quality reference calculations for training and validation [9] [96].

Future Outlook and Research Directions

The field of high-throughput quantitative prediction is poised for transformative advances along several key research directions. These emerging frontiers represent both opportunities and challenges that will define the next decade of materials discovery and optimization.

Integration of Multi-Fidelity Data and Active Learning

Future frameworks will increasingly incorporate data from multiple sources and levels of theory, creating multi-fidelity prediction platforms that balance computational cost with accuracy. Active learning approaches will play a crucial role in this evolution, strategically selecting the most informative data points for expensive DFT calculations to maximize model performance while minimizing computational cost [96]. The development of rigorous uncertainty metrics and acquisition functions tailored for chemical discovery will be essential for guiding these data generation campaigns [96].

Universal, Transferable Models with Improved Interpretability

The pursuit of universal interatomic potentials that maintain accuracy across broad chemical spaces remains a central challenge. Future research will focus on architectural innovations and training strategies that enhance model transferability, potentially through the integration of additional physical features such as charge densities or orbital occupations [96]. Simultaneously, increased emphasis on model interpretability will drive the development of methods that not only predict but also explain adsorption and transition state energies, potentially through attention mechanisms that identify key structural features influencing reactivity [94].

Autonomous Discovery Frameworks and Closing the Loop with Experiment

The integration of prediction, synthesis, and characterization into autonomous discovery frameworks represents the ultimate frontier in high-throughput materials research. These closed-loop systems would combine computational prediction with robotic synthesis and advanced characterization, enabling rapid experimental validation and model refinement. While significant challenges remain in automating materials synthesis and integrating heterogeneous data streams, progress in this direction promises to dramatically accelerate the design cycle for catalysts and sorbents.

The path toward high-throughput, quantitative prediction of adsorption and transition state energies is being paved by synergistic advances in computational methodology, machine learning architectures, and dataset curation. The emergence of comprehensive datasets like ODAC25 and OC25, combined with sophisticated multi-modal frameworks like AdsMT, is transforming our ability to navigate complex energy landscapes and identify promising materials with unprecedented efficiency. These developments are particularly significant for researchers investigating adsorption energy and transition state energy relationships, as they provide both the theoretical framework and practical tools for rational design of catalysts and sorbents.

As the field progresses toward increasingly universal and interpretable models, the integration of physical principles with data-driven approaches will be essential for maintaining predictive accuracy while enhancing fundamental understanding. The future of high-throughput prediction lies not in replacing physical insight but in augmenting human intuition with scalable computational frameworks that can explore vast chemical spaces efficiently. This powerful combination promises to accelerate the discovery of next-generation materials for energy applications, environmental remediation, and sustainable chemical processes, ultimately transforming how we approach the fundamental challenges of reactivity and selectivity in complex chemical systems.

Conclusion

The intricate relationship between adsorption energy and transition state energy is a fundamental determinant of chemical reactivity, with direct applications in designing efficient catalysts and targeted therapeutics. The foundational principles of Transition State Theory provide a robust framework, while modern computational methodologies, particularly machine learning potentials, are dramatically accelerating our ability to map these energy landscapes. However, challenges in data quality, method selection, and computational cost remain significant hurdles. Overcoming these requires continued development of standardized benchmarks, improved model architectures, and robust hybrid workflows that leverage the speed of ML with the accuracy of high-level quantum chemistry. The future of this field lies in creating integrated, automated pipelines that can reliably predict these critical energies across diverse chemical spaces. This will ultimately empower researchers to move beyond observation to the rational design of novel reactions and highly specific molecular interactions, paving the way for breakthroughs in sustainable chemistry and personalized medicine.

References

• 1. Transition state theory [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_state_theory]
• 2. Transition State Theory → Term [https://climate.sustainability-directory.com/term/transition-state-theory/]
• 3. Adsorption energies on transition metal surfaces [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-34507-y]
• 4. NN-VRCTST: Neural Network Potentials Meet Variable ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12573747/]
• 5. Determination of transition state theory rate constants to ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378382011003316]
• 6. AdsorbML: a leap in efficiency for adsorption energy ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-023-01121-5]
• 7. Understanding and predicting trends in adsorption ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41699-025-00579-9]
• 8. Adsorption and desorption of acetone by TiO2 clusters [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772571523000244]
• 9. The Open DAC 2025 Dataset for Sorbent Discovery in ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2508.03162v1]
• 10. Xsorb: A software for identifying the most stable adsorption ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010465523001728]
• 11. Experimental determination of adsorption energies ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0021967303014316]
• 12. Perspective on experimental evaluation of adsorption ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10008-020-04815-8]
• 13. GPU-accelated visualisation software for materials scientists [https://iraspa.org/iraspa/]
• 14. Atomic Adsorption Energies Prediction on Bimetallic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11973507/]
• 15. Introduction [https://arxiv.org/html/2510.22938v1]
• 16. CatBench framework for benchmarking machine learning ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666386425005673]
• 17. An ab initio study on the adsorption of hydrogen molecules ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00339-025-08871-7]
• 18. Theoretical study on the co-adsorption effect of H atoms ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666352X25000391]
• 19. Investigating adsorption of 5-fluorouracil and 6 ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-25773-z]
• 20. 2.2: Day 2 Procedure - Determination of the Activation Energy [https://chem.libretexts.org/Ancillary_Materials/Laboratory_Experiments/Wet_Lab_Experiments/MIT_Labs/Lab_8%3A_Catalase_Kinetics/2.2%3A_Day_2_Procedure_-_Determination_of_the_Activation_Energy]
• 21. 2.3: Transition State Theory [https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Western_Washington_University/Biophysical_Chemistry_(Smirnov_and_McCarty)/02%3A_Chemical_Kinetics/2.03%3A_Transition_State_Theory]
• 22. Are activation barriers of 50–70 kcal mol−1 accessible for ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/sc/d4sc08243e]
• 23. Adsorption and desorption equilibria from statistical ... - ACP [https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/15725/2021/acp-21-15725-2021.html]
• 24. Reaction kinetics study of hydrogen reduction of high ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2238785425004430]
• 25. Adsorption energies on transition metal surfaces [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9652424/]
• 26. Binding free energy calculation with QM/MM hybrid ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3006460/]
• 27. Accurate protein-ligand binding free energy estimation ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-024-01328-7]
• 28. Multivariate linear free energy relationships in catalysis ... [https://openscholar.uga.edu/record/19767?v=pdf]
• 29. Linear Free Energy Relationships Demonstrate a Catalytic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2918422/]
• 30. The latest trends in drug discovery [https://www.cas.org/resources/cas-insights/2025-drug-discovery-trends]
• 31. Density functional theory [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_functional_theory]
• 32. Adsorption Energy - an overview [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/adsorption-energy]
• 33. DFT investigations on adsorption and diffusion mechanisms [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360319924022675]
• 34. A density functional theory analysis of the adsorption and ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nuclear-engineering/articles/10.3389/fnuen.2023.1170424/full]
• 35. What is a transition state? · The DFT Course - Nathan [https://thisisntnathan.github.io/dftCourse/LongCourse/transitionState.html]
• 36. DFT study of the adsorption properties and sensitivity of a B ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-77659-1]
• 37. What's the Theory Behind Nudged Elastic Band? [https://mattermodeling.stackexchange.com/questions/7008/whats-the-theory-behind-nudged-elastic-band]
• 38. Nudged Elastic Band (NEB) — AMS 2025.1 documentation [https://www.scm.com/doc/AMS/Tasks/NEB.html]
• 39. [2507.19968] Dimer-Enhanced Optimization: A First-Order ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.19968]
• 40. A Framework for Finding Local Saddle Points in Two- ... [https://openreview.net/forum?id=NbRybPuWCv]
• 41. Machine learning approaches for transition state prediction [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2667109325001964]
• 42. Harnessing machine learning for high-entropy alloy catalysis [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-025-01579-5]
• 43. Transition state structure detection with machine learningÅ› [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-025-01693-4]
• 44. Application of machine learning in adsorption energy ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352152X25000763]
• 45. Integrating Machine Learning and Color Chemistry [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11210371/]
• 46. Machine-learning driven global optimization of surface ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-023-01065-w]
• 47. Machine learning and data-driven methods in ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-025-01691-6]
• 48. Atomate2: modular workflows for materials science [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/dd/d5dd00019j]
• 49. DFT and hybrid classical–quantum machine learning ... [https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/revce-2025-0022/html?srsltid=AfmBOoq-o8KN9bTvCoFYNYX52yn6t_WiD5uerSlkITl22zbFivB7JMiq]
• 50. Applications of density functional theory and machine ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949822825002011]
• 51. Modeling thermocatalytic systems for CO 2 hydrogenation to ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/sc/d5sc00211g]
• 52. Artificial intelligence for drug delivery: Yesterday, today and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211383525006227]
• 53. Advancements in nano-based drug delivery systems for ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/pm/d5pm00179j]
• 54. Topical Drug Delivery Trends 2025 [https://tiogaresearch.com/topical-drug-delivery-trends-2025-advanced-formulation-science-and-smart-delivery-systems/]
• 55. Catalyst Screening System Market - Global Forecast 2025- ... [https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/6055628/catalyst-screening-system-market-global?srsltid=AfmBOoqe6UgDog55nxUIgnWknWCoOh0Pm5bRXHgkV7irycxruTx7Vc3B]
• 56. Catalysis Screening Systems Unlocking Growth ... [https://www.archivemarketresearch.com/reports/catalysis-screening-systems-189229]
• 57. Applying pretrained molecular representation for reaction ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666386425005302]
• 58. Comprehensive exploration of graphically defined reaction ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-023-02043-z]
• 59. Overcoming Challenges in High-Dimensional Optimization [https://scisimple.com/en/articles/2025-06-04-overcoming-challenges-in-high-dimensional-optimization--ak46jyr]
• 60. AUGUR, a flexible and efficient optimization algorithm for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-025-01630-5]
• 61. [2510.14144] A Stochastic Algorithm for Searching ... Saddle Points [https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.14144]
• 62. Transition States, Analogues and Drug Development - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3560411/]
• 63. Transition state analog [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_state_analog]
• 64. Category:Exchange-correlation functionals [https://vasp.at/wiki/Category:Exchange-correlation_functionals]
• 65. Exchange-correlation Functionals | Johannes Voss [https://stanford.edu/~vossj/project/xc-functionals/]
• 66. 5.3.5 Exchange-Correlation Functionals [https://manual.q-chem.com/6.2/sect_DFTexchangecorrelation.html]
• 67. Adsorption on Graphene [https://www.cp2k.org/exercises:2017_uzh_cmest:adsorption]
• 68. Individualized Absorption Models in Population ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7306615/]
• 69. Quantitative study of the adsorption sites and reaction ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0926860X2300337X]
• 70. Amsterdam Modeling Suite - SCM [https://www.scm.com/amsterdam-modeling-suite/]
• 71. Optimal decision-making in high-throughput virtual screening ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10682755/]
• 72. Transition-state theory — Computational Chemistry from ... [https://kthpanor.github.io/echem/docs/mol_struct/tst.html]
• 73. Computational model captures the elusive transition states ... [https://chemistry.mit.edu/chemistry-news/computational-model-captures-the-elusive-transition-states-of-chemical-reactions/]
• 74. Optimal high-throughput virtual screening pipeline for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004222020089]
• 75. Choosing the best tool for MD simulations: GROMACS ... [https://www.linkedin.com/posts/omarariasgaguancela_gromacs-vs-amber-vs-namd-which-one-do-you-activity-7339451262129606656-xgBd]
• 76. Streamlining lead discovery by aligning in silico and high- ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S136759310600086X]
• 77. Principles of early drug discovery - PMC - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3058157/]
• 78. Data Mining and Computational Modeling of High ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6181121/]
• 79. Guessing Transition States - Rowan Scientific [https://rowansci.com/blog/guessing-transition-states]
• 80. Experimental energies of formation reactions for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0039602825000214]
• 81. [2010.09990] The Open Catalyst 2020 (OC20) Dataset and Community Challenges [https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.09990]
• 82. Open Catalyst Challenge [https://opencatalystproject.org/challenge.html]
• 83. An accurate and efficient framework for modelling the ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-025-01884-y]
• 84. Multi-feature deep learning framework for predicting CO ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-22059-2]
• 85. EMFF-2025: a general neural network potential for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-025-01809-w]
• 86. Benchmark Experimental Data Set and Assessment of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2756418/]
• 87. Chemical Kinetics and Transition State Theory [https://www.nature.com/research-intelligence/nri-topic-summaries/chemical-kinetics-and-transition-state-theory-micro-974384]
• 88. The experimental and kinetic insights into innovative K 2 ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43938-025-00094-9]
• 89. Measurements and Error Analysis [https://www.webassign.net/question_assets/unccolphysmechl1/measurements/manual.html]
• 90. Uncertainty analysis of adsorption measurements using ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10450-020-00236-1]
• 91. Error analysis and improvement of water displacement ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0894177724002024]
• 92. Catalytic resonance theory for parametric uncertainty of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2667109325002611]
• 93. 1.5 Collision Theory and Transition State Theory [https://fiveable.me/physical-chemistry-ii/unit-1/collision-theory-transition-state-theory/study-guide/NJw6wtzAZ2sOhvpJ]
• 94. A multi-modal transformer for predicting global minimum ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-58499-7]
• 95. The Open DAC 2025 Dataset for Sorbent Discovery in ... [https://ai.meta.com/research/publications/the-open-dac-2025-dataset-for-sorbent-discovery-in-direct-air-capture/]
• 96. Open Catalyst 2025 (OC25) Dataset [https://www.emergentmind.com/topics/open-catalyst-2025-oc25-dataset]