Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41509708›Full record

Articlenpj computational materials2026

MOFSimBench: evaluating universal machine learning interatomic potentials in metal-organic framework molecular modeling.

Hendrik Kraß, Ju Huang, Seyed Mohamad Moosavi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A non-enantiopure HChemical science · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Hendrik KraßComputer Science, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Ju HuangChemical Engineering & Applied Chemistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3E5 Canada.
Seyed Mohamad MoosaviChemical Engineering & Applied Chemistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3E5 Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

ChemistryMaterials science

Identifiers

PMID41509708
PMCPMC12774856

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.