Prediction and Experimental Verification of Electrolyte Solvation Structure from an OMol25-Trained Interatomic Potential
Le résumé fourni par la source
Machine learning interatomic potentials (MLIPs) trained on large, chemically diverse datasets are revolutionizing computational chemistry, enabling molecular dynamics simulations of battery electrolytes with near-DFT accuracy over 10,000 times faster than DFT. While previous MLIP training datasets with suitable elemental coverage for electrolytes have been based on inorganic materials, the Open Molecules 2025 (OMol25) dataset provides large-scale molecular DFT MLIP training data with broad elemental coverage and specifically samples tens of millions of electrolyte configurations. Here, we integrate computational modeling with experimental validation to systematically assess the ability of large-scale MLIPs pre-trained on materials data or on OMol25 to accurately resolve nanoscale structural organization and ion-solvation characteristics in Na-ion battery electrolytes across diverse physicochemical conditions and compositional regimes. We find that the OMol25-trained Universal Model of Atoms (UMA-OMol) predicts experimentally measured densities and X-ray structure factors in substantially better agreement compared to state-of-the-art models trained only on inorganic materials data. Using UMA-OMol, we further analyze systematic trends in solvation structure as a function of cation identity, anion chemistry, salt concentration, and solvent topology. We observe that increasing system temperature amplifies the heterogeneity within the solvation environment, perturbing cation-solvent interactions and promoting the formation of contact ion pairs (CIPs). Moreover, subtle variations in the solvent topology of glyme-based electrolytes cause pronounced changes in ion-correlations and solvation structure. The experimental agreement and microscopic insights shown here position OMol25-trained MLIPs as a practical route to predictive, high-throughput electrolyte simulations.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.