Here, we develop and validate a machine‐learning (ML) framework for rapid screening and prediction of hydrogen‐storage performance in perovskite hydrides (ABH 3 ), using 17 physicochemical descriptors derived from 1000 DFT‐calculated compounds. Efficient solid‐state hydrogen storage is critical for sustainable energy, but exhaustive DFT screening of the thousands of possible perovskite‐hydride (ABH 3 ) compositions is computationally prohibitive. Here a ML framework was developed and validated on 1000 DFT‐derived ABH 3 compounds described by 17 physicochemical descriptors, benchmarking Random Forest, XGBoost, SVR, Decision Tree, Linear Regression, and a stacking ensemble across five target properties. On a genuinely held‐out 200‐compound test set, the optimized stacking ensemble reached R 2 = 0.994 for hydrogen‐storage capacity and F1 = ROC‐AUC = 1.000 for stability and magnetic‐ordering classification; formation energy ( R 2 = 0.755) and bulk modulus ( R 2 = 0.749) proved harder to predict, reflecting genuine descriptor‐property limits rather than model failure. A SISSO‐style symbolic‐regression search distilled the ensemble into a transparent two‐term formula (summed A‐/B‐site atomic mass and its product; R 2 = 0.838, test), recovering the model's learned physics with no black‐box component. SHAP, LIME, permutation importance, and UMAP consistently identify A‐/B‐site atomic mass as the dominant driver of storage capacity, yielding a design threshold (M a + Mᵇ ≤ 202.5 amu) satisfied by all 15 top‐ranked candidates (KScH 3 , NaCoH 3 , CaNiH 3 , among others). Benchmarked against AB5 (LaNi 5 , 1.2–1.5 wt%) and AB2 (TiMn 2 , 1.8–2.2 wt%) intermetallic hydrides, the explored ABH 3 space reaches up to 8.19 wt%. Inference across all 1000 compounds completes in under 100 ms after an 18‐s training step, versus hours‐to‐weeks per DFT calculation. A statistically significant but weak, mass‐confounded relationship between magnetic ordering and storage capacity is reported, correcting an earlier overstated trade‐off.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jamal et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: