cond-mat.mtrl-sciJun 19, 2026

Computational references are not experiments: pre-registered validation of machine-learned sodium-cathode voltages

Authors: Krishna Teja Vepa

Organizations: Independent Researcher†

Abstract

Machine-learning screens for battery materials are trained and judged almost entirely against computed reference voltages, and those references carry their own systematic errors. We report a case in which this matters quantitatively: our own screening stack (a graph-network voltage screen, a prior-art triage layer, and a local PBE+U bench) fails pre-registered validation against experiment-anchored literature values. Verdict thresholds, failure modes, and the primary metric were committed before analysis. On an operator-audited set of known Na-ion cathodes (n = 6 after one documented exclusion; verdict unchanged at n = 7), the raw held-out mean absolute error was 0.67 V, the pre-registered conservative metric, the upper 95% confidence bound of the cross-validated bias-corrected error, was 1.09 V, and the residual was strongly voltage-dependent (r = -0.94), so no additive calibration is valid. On the two compounds where prediction, database reference, and experiment could all be compared, the Materials Project PBE+U reference sat about 0.54 V below measurement: the reference, not the model, dominated the error. A prior-art screen found at least 70% of the targeted Na substitution space already published. We retire the screen, bound what "verified" means for our DFT ledger, and pre-register a calibration audit of it against four benchmark Li couples.

Explore similar work

Sep 20, 2026cs.LG

Physics-residual machine learning predicts oxygen-evolution catalyst activity beyond the training range from sparse polarization measurements

Screening oxygen-evolution catalysts on combinatorial libraries requires deciding which candidates receive the remaining measurements. The deciding activity lies beyond each candidate's measured potential window and often above every activity recorded during fitting. We predict it by physics-residual machine learning: the Tafel equation extrapolates the candidate's own measured current and slope, a learned residual attenuated with feature-space distance corrects the magnitude, and an applicability-domain score identifies predictions above the training range before measurement. In a separately fabricated 322-candidate library, 282 above the training maximum, two measurements per candidate gave a mean absolute error of 0.203 mA cm2^{-2} against 1.330 for the selected data-driven machine-learning model. Errors inside the training range remained comparable, and 35 labelled catalysts were enough to fit it. In two independent datasets the same construction lowered the overpotential error by 29 to 52%. Campaigns can therefore shorten each measurement and still rank the most active compositions.
Yong-Woon Kim, Jihyeok Lee, Sungtae Park +2
Jul 26, 2026cs.LG

Charging Phase Health Indicators for Battery State-of-Health Estimation: A Systematic Comparison of CC, CV, and Combined Approaches under Cross-Battery Validation

Accurate State-of-Health estimation is essential for safe battery operation and cost-effective maintenance. Although numerous health indicators have been derived from constant-current (CC) and constant-voltage (CV) charging phases, their effectiveness under realistic cross-battery validation remains insufficiently studied. This work addresses this gap through a systematic comparison of CC-only, CV-only, and combined indicator sets using rigorous Leave-One-Battery-Out (LOBO) validation on the NASA battery aging dataset. Four CV-phase indicators and CC phase duration are evaluated individually and in combination. Results show that the combined CC+CV approach achieves the best performance (R2 = 0.874), confirming that CC and CV phases capture complementary degradation information. Moreover, a 119% performance gap is observed between standard 5-fold cross-validation and LOBO validation, indicating that conventional evaluation overestimates practical accuracy. Based on these findings, practical guidelines are provided for indicator selection under data and computational constraints.
Huy Hoang Le, Kim-Anh Nguyen
Mar 1, 2026cs.CL

Catalyst-Agent: Autonomous heterogeneous catalyst screening with an LLM Agent

The discovery of catalysts for electrochemical applications such as the oxygen reduction reaction (ORR), nitrogen reduction reaction (NRR), and CO2 reduction reaction (CO2RR) remains a central challenge in chemistry and materials science. Machine-learning interatomic potentials (MLIPs) and graph neural network models now accelerate individual adsorption-energy calculations by orders of magnitude relative to density functional theory. However, true large-scale screening is still blocked by human decisions: selecting candidates, constructing slabs, enumerating adsorption sites, interpreting descriptor failures, and choosing follow-up modifications. Here, we introduce Catalyst-Agent, a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server-based, LLM-powered agent that autonomously coordinates closed-loop catalyst screening. Catalyst-Agent searches materials databases through OPTIMADE, constructs slabs, computes adsorption energies using Meta FAIRchem's UMA MLIP within AdsorbML, evaluates reaction-specific descriptors, and applies structural modifications to refine near-miss candidates. In ORR, NRR, and CO2RR campaigns, Catalyst-Agent demonstrates high performance and converges in 1.40-3.41 trials per successful material on average. It identified Sn3Sc, Sn3Y, Tl3La, Pb3Y and In3Y as CO2RR candidates for further validation that were not previously reported in the literature. DFT single-point checks confirmed screening outcomes for representative NRR and CO2RR candidates. Ablations show these gains arise from chemically informed candidate selection and feedback-directed modification rather than brute-force evaluation: fully randomized screening dropped to 13.3%, 16.7%, and 0% success for ORR, NRR, and CO2RR, respectively. These results show that tool-grounded LLM agents can shift catalyst screening from manual trial-and-error toward more autonomous, reproducible and adaptive workflows.
Achuth Chandrasekhar, Janghoon Ock, Amir Barati Farimani