Articlenpj computational materials2026
MOFSimBench: evaluating universal machine learning interatomic potentials in metal-organic framework molecular modeling.
Article in npj computational materials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A non-enantiopure HChemical science · 2026Article
- Generalized Machine Learning Potentials for Predicting Low-Pressure Water Adsorption in Flexible Al-Based Metal-Organic Frameworks.Journal of chemical theory and computation · 2026Article
- Towards accurate and scalable high-throughput MOF adsorption screening: merging classical force fields and universal machine learned interatomic potentials.Chemical science · 2026Article
- Generalization of long-range machine learning potentials in complex chemical spaces.Digital discovery · 2026Article
- Evaluating mechanical property prediction across material classes using molecular dynamics simulations with universal machine-learned interatomic potentials.Communications chemistry · 2026Article
- Reactive Machine Learning Interatomic Potentials for Chemistry and Materials Science.Chemical reviews · 2026Review
- Optimizing cross-domain transfer for universal machine learning interatomic potentials.Nature communications · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Universal machine learning interatomic potentials (uMLIPs) have emerged as powerful tools for accelerating atomistic simulations, offering scalable and efficient modeling with accuracy close to quantum calculations. However, their reliability and effectiveness in practical, real-world applications remain an open question. Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) and related nanoporous materials are highly porous crystals with critical relevance in carbon capture, energy storage, and catalysis applications. Modeling nanoporous materials presents distinct challenges for uMLIPs due to their diverse chemistry, structural complexity, including porosity and coordination bonds, and the absence from existing training datasets. Here, we introduce MOFSimBench, a benchmark for evaluating uMLIPs on key materials modeling tasks for nanoporous materials, including structural optimization, molecular dynamics (MD) stability, bulk property prediction, and host-guest interactions. Evaluating 20 models from various architectures, we find that top-performing uMLIPs consistently outperform classical force fields and fine-tuned machine learning potentials across all tasks, demonstrating their readiness for deployment in nanoporous materials modeling. Our analysis highlights that data quality plays a more critical role than model architecture in determining performance across all evaluated uMLIPs. We release our modular and extensible benchmarking framework at https://github.com/AI4ChemS/mofsim-bench, providing an open resource to guide the adoption for nanoporous materials modeling and further development of uMLIPs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.