This analysis demonstrates how graph neural networks improve adsorption predictions in aromatic compounds, suggesting effective adaptations using limited datasets.
The growing need for rapid screening of adsorption energies in organic materials has driven substantial progress in developing various architectures of equivariant graph neural networks (eGNNs). This advancement has largely been enabled by the availability of extensive Density Functional Theory (DFT)-generated datasets, sufficiently large to train complex eGNN models effectively. However, certain material groups with significant industrial relevance, such as aromatic compounds, remain underrepresented in these large datasets. In this work, we aim to bridge the gap between limited, domain-specific DFT datasets and large-scale pretrained eGNNs. Our methodology involves creating a specialized dataset by segregating aromatic compounds after a targeted ensemble extraction process, then fine-tuning a pretrained model via approaches that include full retraining and systematically freezing specific network sections. We demonstrate that these approaches can yield accurate energy and force predictions with minimal domain-specific training data and computation. Additionally, we investigate the effects of augmenting training datasets with chemically related but out-of-domain groups. Our findings indicate that incorporating supplementary data that closely resembles the target domain, even if approximate, would enhance model performance on domain-specific tasks. Furthermore, we systematically freeze different sections of the pretrained models to elucidate the role each component plays during adaptation to new domains, revealing that relearning low-level representations is critical for effective domain transfer. Overall, this study contributes valuable insights and practical guidelines for efficiently adapting deep learning models for accurate adsorption energy predictions, significantly reducing reliance on extensive training datasets.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Parashkooh et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: