Tibor Szilvási
banner
tibor-szilvasi.bsky.social
Tibor Szilvási
@tibor-szilvasi.bsky.social
Assistant Professor at The University of Alabama
Computational Chemistry | Catalysis | Material Design
I think our method will be the way to study electric double layers with the correct ion concentration in the future.

Congrats, Ademola Soyemi!

Thank you for the funding U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)!
December 1, 2025 at 12:51 PM
We also show that machine learning interatomic potentials simulations can help understand catalyst restructuring and connect to TEM measurements directly.

pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10....
Temporal Resolution of In Situ TEM Limits the Characterization of Catalyst Site Dynamics
In situ transmission electron microscopy (TEM) provides a means for capturing atomic-resolution micrographs under reactive environments and has been widely employed to identify active site candidates in heterogeneous catalysis. We highlight here that the limited temporal resolution of in situ TEM fundamentally restricts its ability to resolve transient surface structures that may govern catalytic activity. We demonstrate that in situ TEM cannot capture dynamic active sites that evolve on sub-nanosecond time scales by considering two systems: (i) Cu adatoms on Cu(111) at 0 and 100 bar CO pressure at 573 K and (ii) N2 decomposition on Fe(111) at 800 K. We study both systems via molecular dynamics using machine learning interatomic potentials trained on density functional theory data. Our results show that rapid surface rearrangements are averaged out in simulated TEM micrographs even under idealized imaging conditions. As a result, the resulting transient sites are rendered effectively invisible under in situ conditions. The findings of this study highlight an intrinsic limitation of in situ TEM and emphasize the necessity of additional in situ characterization as well as computational techniques to understand catalyst dynamics.
pubs.acs.org
November 10, 2025 at 1:09 PM
For simple materials problems, auxiliary features such as integration with molecular dynamics engines, trade-offs between computational data set generation cost vs MLIP inference speed, and framework integration may play a more important decision factor than small differences in error metrics.
July 31, 2025 at 2:06 PM
For researchers looking to choose an MLIP architecture, we suggest selecting equivariant MLIP architectures if the complexity of the system is a challenge.
July 31, 2025 at 2:06 PM
Moving forward, we recommend that benchmarking efforts shift their focus from marginal accuracy improvements in energy and force errors toward identifying and understanding model failure modes, rigorously assessing transferability, and evaluating how their errors affect observable predictions.
July 31, 2025 at 2:05 PM
- The HEA and Zr–O data sets are identified as challenging tests for future benchmarks and MLIP model architecture developments as they show significant differentiation in error between MLIP architectures.
July 31, 2025 at 2:04 PM
Key points:

- Our analysis highlights that low errors in energy and force predictions do not guarantee reliable observables.

- Equivariant MLIPs offer 1.5–2× improvements over non-equivariant MLIPs in energy and force error for structurally or compositionally complex systems.
July 31, 2025 at 2:04 PM
We tested five MLIP architectures (MACE, NequIP, Allegro, MTP, and Torch-ANI), focusing not only on traditional metrics (energies, forces, and stresses) but also explicitly validating derived physical observables.
July 31, 2025 at 2:03 PM
MS25 presents diverse materials-relevant systems including MgO surfaces, liquid water, zeolites, a catalytic Pt surface reaction, high-entropy alloys (HEAs), and disordered Zr-oxides.
July 31, 2025 at 2:03 PM
Congratulations, Ademola!

Thank you Department of Energy for the funding!
July 21, 2025 at 1:08 PM