About CathodeScreen

A machine learning platform for accelerating thermodynamic stability prediction of lithium-ion battery cathode materials.

Motivation

High-throughput computational screening of cathode materials is bottlenecked by the computational cost of Density Functional Theory (DFT) calculations. A single DFT relaxation can require 10–100 CPU hours, making exhaustive screening of large candidate spaces prohibitively expensive.

Furthermore, the majority of randomly sampled candidates are thermodynamically unstable (Ehull > 50 meV/atom), resulting in wasted computational resources. Machine learning pre-screening offers an efficient filtering mechanism to prioritize candidates before expensive DFT validation.

Approach

We employ MACE-MP-0 (Multi-Atomic Cluster Expansion), a state-of-the-art equivariant foundation model for materials science pretrained on the Materials Project (Batatia et al., 2023). MACE uses higher-order equivariant message passing with multi-body interactions, enabling highly accurate prediction of energy above the convex hull (Ehull).

Model Configuration (v1-Li-Cathode)

Architecture

  • • MACE-MP-0 "medium" backbone (~3.5M params)
  • • 5-member deep ensemble (seeds 42–46)
  • • Frozen backbone, fine-tuned last interaction block
  • • Custom regression head: quantile outputs (q10, q50, q90) + stability classification (p_stable, p_metastable)

Training Details

  • • Dataset: 17,227 Transition Metal Oxides (TMOs)
  • • Splitting: SOAP-LOCO (Leave-One-Cluster-Out)
  • • Target: Ehull in eV/atom
  • • Post-hoc symmetric conformal calibration (90% coverage)

Uncertainty Quantification

We combine three complementary sources of uncertainty following best practices in deep ensemble methodology (Lakshminarayanan et al., 2017):

# Aleatoric (data noise) — per-model quantile regression

σ_aleatoric = mean(q90 − q10) across ensemble

# Epistemic (model ignorance) — inter-model disagreement

σ_epistemic = std(q50 across 5 members)

# Total uncertainty

σ_total = √(σ_aleatoric² + σ_epistemic²)

Prediction intervals are calibrated via symmetric conformal prediction on the validation set, guaranteeing 90% coverage. A conformal delta is added to raw quantile intervals to achieve valid coverage under distribution shift (Vovk et al., 2005).

Validation Methodology

We use SOAP-LOCO (Smooth Overlap of Atomic Positions — Leave One Cluster Out) splitting to evaluate generalization to unseen chemical families. This approach clusters materials by structural similarity and holds out entire clusters during validation, providing a rigorous test of extrapolation capability.

Performance Results

Governance: APPROVED (6/6 checks passed) — Ranking (Spearman > 0.5), calibration (90% coverage), KEEP precision (> 85%), false-kill rate (< 2%), and decision-making all verified.

0.663

Spearman ρ

Test set ranking

0.030

MAE

eV/atom (test)

92.7%

KEEP Precision

123 / 1,013 KEEP'd

0.0%

False Kill

Rate

Known limitation: LOCO (leave-one-cluster-out) performance degrades significantly (Spearman ≈ 0, coverage 72%). The model is reliable for in-distribution cathodes but should not be trusted for structurally novel polymorphs.

Note: Primary metrics computed on test split (1,013 materials). Model scope: Transition Metal Oxide cathodes from the Materials Project.

Decision Policy

Materials are classified into actionable tiers using conformally-calibrated quantile predictions from the 5-member ensemble:

ActionCriterionInterpretation
KEEPq90 < 0.05 eV ∧ p_stable > 0.8High confidence stable → Prioritize for DFT
KEEPq90 < 0.10 eV ∧ p_stable > 0.7Likely metastable → Worth DFT validation
KILLq10 > 0.10 eVConfident unstable → Skip DFT
MAYBEOtherwiseUncertain → Manual review recommended

References

  1. Batatia, I., Benber, P., Chiang, B., et al. (2023). A foundation model for atomistic simulation.arXiv:2401.00096.
  2. Deng, B., Zhong, P., Jun, K., Riebesell, J., Han, K., Bartel, C. J., & Ceder, G. (2023). CHGNet as a pretrained universal neural network potential for charge-informed atomistic modelling.Nature Machine Intelligence, 5(9), 1031–1041.
  3. Jain, A., Ong, S. P., Hautier, G., Chen, W., Richards, W. D., Dacek, S., ... & Persson, K. A. (2013). Commentary: The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation.APL Materials, 1(1), 011002.
  4. Lakshminarayanan, B., Pritzel, A., & Blundell, C. (2017). Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensembles.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30.
  5. Bartók, A. P., Kondor, R., & Csányi, G. (2013). On representing chemical environments.Physical Review B, 87(18), 184115.
  6. Vovk, V., Gammerman, A., & Shafer, G. (2005). Algorithmic Learning in a Random World.Springer. (Conformal prediction)

Programmatic Access

CathodeScreen exposes a RESTful API for batch predictions. Upload CIF files and receive JSON responses with predicted Ehull, uncertainty estimates, and decision recommendations.

# Example API Response
{
  "material_id": "mp-1234567",
  "formula": "LiCoO2",
  "ehull_pred_q50": 0.023,
  "ehull_pred_q10": 0.012,
  "ehull_pred_q90": 0.034,
  "sigma_epistemic": 0.005,
  "sigma_total": 0.008,
  "p_stable": 0.91,
  "decision": "KEEP",
  "conformal_coverage": 0.90
}