ArticleJournal of chemical theory and computation2026
Predicting Properties of Key Ingredients of Battery Solvents with Density Functional Theory and Adaptive Force Matching.
Article in Journal of chemical theory and computation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
The performance of batteries is heavily influenced by the properties of their solvents, which play a crucial role in ion solvation, conductivity, and electrochemical stability. However, traditional force field models often fall short in accurately predicting these properties. This study investigates the potential of adaptive force matching (AFM) to predict a range of solvent-related properties using only electronic structure theory. To demonstrate this approach, we developed AFM models based on B3LYP-D3(BJ) for three common molecules present in battery solvents: dimethylamine (DMA), dimethyl carbonate (DMC), and tetrahydrofuran (THF). Our results reveal that AFM models significantly outperform traditional force fields, including OPLS-AA (CM1A), GAFF2, and GROMOS 54A7, in predicting key properties such as density, heat of vaporization, viscosity, diffusion constant, boiling temperature, and free energy of vaporization. Notably, the average percentage error of AFM models is approximately 13%, substantially lower than that of traditional force fields (21% for GAFF2, the best-performing empirical model). These findings underscore the promise of AFM in predicting physical properties of battery solvents, with far-reaching implications for chemistry, materials science, and related fields where accurate predictions are essential for understanding complex phenomena and designing innovative materials and systems.
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.