1. Vogt, C. & Weckhuysen, B. M. The concept of active site in heterogeneous catalysis. Nat. Rev. Chem. 6, 89–111 (2022).

   Article 
   PubMed 

   Google Scholar 

2. Ye, R., Zhao, J., Wickemeyer, B. B., Toste, F. D. & Somorjai, G. A. Foundations and strategies of the construction of hybrid catalysts for optimized performances. Nat. Catal. 1, 318–325 (2018).

   Article 

   Google Scholar 

3. Copéret, C., Chabanas, M., Petroff Saint-Arroman, R. & Basset, J. M. Homogeneous and heterogeneous catalysis: bridging the gap through surface organometallic chemistry. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 42, 156–181 (2003).

   Article 

   Google Scholar 

4. Ye, R., Hurlburt, T. J., Sabyrov, K., Alayoglu, S. & Somorjai, G. A. Molecular catalysis science: perspective on unifying the fields of catalysis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 5159–5166 (2016).

   Article 
   CAS 
   PubMed 
   PubMed Central 

   Google Scholar 

5. Zhao, B., Han, Z. & Ding, K. The N-H functional group in organometallic catalysis. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 52, 4744–4788 (2013).

   Article 
   CAS 

   Google Scholar 

6. Sheldon, R. A. & Woodley, J. M. Role of biocatalysis in sustainable chemistry. Chem. Rev. 118, 801–838 (2018).

   Article 
   CAS 
   PubMed 

   Google Scholar 

7. Munnik, P., de Jongh, P. E. & de Jong, K. P. Recent developments in the synthesis of supported catalysts. Chem. Rev. 115, 6687–6718 (2015).

   Article 
   CAS 
   PubMed 

   Google Scholar 

8. Bornscheuer, U. T. et al. Engineering the third wave of biocatalysis. Nature 485, 185–194 (2012).

   Article 
   CAS 
   PubMed 

   Google Scholar 

9. Grunwaldt, J.-D. & Schroer, C. G. Hard and soft X-ray microscopy and tomography in catalysis: bridging the different time and length scales. Chem. Soc. Rev. 39, 4741–4753 (2010).

   Article 
   CAS 
   PubMed 

   Google Scholar 

10. Meirer, F. & Weckhuysen, B. M. Spatial and temporal exploration of heterogeneous catalysts with synchrotron radiation. Nat. Rev. Mater. 3, 324–340 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

11. Chen, B. W. J., Xu, L. & Mavrikakis, M. Computational methods in heterogeneous catalysis. Chem. Rev. 121, 1007–1048 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

12. Durand, D. J. & Fey, N. Computational ligand descriptors for catalyst design. Chem. Rev. 119, 6561–6594 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

13. Wang, H. et al. Scientific discovery in the age of artificial intelligence. Nature 620, 47–60 (2023).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

14. LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y. & Hinton, G. Deep learning. Nature 521, 436–444 (2015).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

15. Kitchin, J. R. Machine learning in catalysis. Nat. Catal. 1, 230–232 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

16. Toyao, T. et al. Machine learning for catalysis informatics: recent applications and prospects. ACS Catal. 10, 2260–2297 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

17. Ma, X., Li, Z., Achenie, L. E. K. & Xin, H. Machine-learning-augmented chemisorption model for CO₂ electroreduction catalyst screening. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 6, 3528–3533 (2015).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

18. Ahneman, D. T., Estrada, J. G., Lin, S., Dreher, S. D. & Doyle, A. G. Predicting reaction performance in C-N cross-coupling using machine learning. Science 360, 186–190 (2018). The application of interpretable machine learning on a high-throughput Buchwald–Hartwig dataset to predict high-performing palladium catalysts and unravel their inhibition mechanism.

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

19. Kim, M. et al. Searching for an optimal multi-metallic alloy catalyst by active learning combined with experiments. Adv. Mater. 34, 2108900 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

20. Shields, B. J. et al. Bayesian reaction optimization as a tool for chemical synthesis. Nature 590, 89–96 (2021). Development of Bayesian optimization on palladium-catalysed Mitsunobu and deoxyfluorination reactions where the algorithm consistently outperformed human decision-making in terms number of experiments and actual yields to optimize the process.

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

21. Wu, Z., Kan, S. B. J., Lewis, R. D., Wittmann, B. J. & Arnold, F. H. Machine learning-assisted directed protein evolution with combinatorial libraries. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 8852–8858 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

22. Lu, H. et al. Machine learning-aided engineering of hydrolases for PET depolymerization. Nature 604, 662–667 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

23. Ulissi, Z. W., Medford, A. J., Bligaard, T. & Nørskov, J. K. To address surface reaction network complexity using scaling relations machine learning and DFT calculations. Nat. Commun. 8, 14621 (2017).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

24. Li, F. et al. Deep learning-based kcat prediction enables improved enzyme-constrained model reconstruction. Nat. Catal. 5, 662–672 (2022). A deep learning methodology to predict enzyme turnover numbers of metabolic enzymes from any organism merely from substrate structures and protein sequences.

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

25. Holeňa, M. & Baerns, M. Feedforward neural networks in catalysis: a tool for the approximation of the dependency of yield on catalyst composition and for knowledge extraction. Catal. Today 81, 485–494 (2003). Amongst the earliest reports on applied machine learning in catalysis, wherein a feedforward neural network was used to predict propene yield based on the catalyst composition.

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

26. Baumes, L., Farrusseng, D., Lengliz, M. & Mirodatos, C. Using artificial neural networks to boost high-throughput discovery in heterogeneous catalysis. QSAR Comb. Sci. 23, 767–778 (2004).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

27. Burello, E., Farrusseng, D. & Rothenberg, G. Combinatorial explosion in homogeneous catalysis: screening 60,000 cross-coupling reactions. Adv. Synth. Catal. 346, 1844–1853 (2004).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

28. Corma, A. et al. Optimisation of olefin epoxidation catalysts with the application of high-throughput and genetic algorithms assisted by artificial neural networks (softcomputing techniques). J. Catal. 229, 513–524 (2005).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

29. Venkatasubramanian, V. The promise of artificial intelligence in chemical engineering: is it here, finally? AIChE J. 65, 466–478 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

30. Pyzer-Knapp, E. O. et al. Accelerating materials discovery using artificial intelligence, high performance computing and robotics. NPJ Comput. Mater. 8, 84 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

31. Pedregosa, F. et al. Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 2825–2830 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

32. RDKit; https://www.rdkit.org/

33. Chanussot, L. et al. Open catalyst 2020 (OC20) dataset and community challenges. ACS Catal. 11, 6059–6072 (2021). The most extensive database consisting of close to 1.3 million density DFT relaxations across a wide swath of materials, surfaces and adsorbates (nitrogen, carbon and oxygen chemistries) for application in heterogeneous catalysis.

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

34. Kearnes, S. M. et al. The open reaction database. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 143, 18820–18826 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

35. Yano, J. et al. The case for data science in experimental chemistry: examples and recommendations. Nat. Rev. Chem. 6, 357–370 (2022).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

36. Schlexer Lamoureux, P. et al. Machine learning for computational heterogeneous catalysis. ChemCatChem 11, 3581–3601 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

37. Medford, A. J., Kunz, M. R., Ewing, S. M., Borders, T. & Fushimi, R. Extracting knowledge from data through catalysis informatics. ACS Catal. 8, 7403–7429 (2018).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

38. Maldonado, A. G. & Rothenberg, G. Predictive modeling in homogeneous catalysis: a tutorial. Chem. Soc. Rev. 39, 1891–1902 (2010).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

39. Mazurenko, S., Prokop, Z. & Damborsky, J. Machine learning in enzyme engineering. ACS Catal. 10, 1210–1223 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

40. Suvarna, M. & Pérez-Ramírez, J. Dataset: Embracing Data Science in Catalysis Research (Zenodo, 2024); https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10640876

41. Zahrt, A. F. et al. Prediction of higher-selectivity catalysts by computer-driven workflow and machine learning. Science 363, eaau5631 (2019). The study models multiple conformations of more than 800 prospective catalysts for the coupling reaction of imines and thiols, and trained machine learning algorithms on a subset of experimental results, to achieve highly accurate predictions of enantioselectivities.

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

42. Nguyen, T. N. et al. High-throughput experimentation and catalyst informatics for oxidative coupling of methane. ACS Catal. 10, 921–932 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

43. Tran, K. & Ulissi, Z. W. Active learning across intermetallics to guide discovery of electrocatalysts for CO₂ reduction and H₂ evolution. Nat. Catal. 1, 696–703 (2018). A fully automated screening method developed by integrating machine learning and optimization algorithms to guide DFT calculations, for in silico prediction of electrocatalyst performance for CO₂ reduction and H₂ evolution.

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

44. Wang, G. et al. Accelerated discovery of multi-elemental reverse water–gas shift catalysts using extrapolative machine learning approach. Nat. Commun. 14, 5861 (2023).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

45. Amar, Y., Schweidtmann, A. M., Deutsch, P., Cao, L. & Lapkin, A. Machine learning and molecular descriptors enable rational solvent selection in asymmetric catalysis. Chem. Sci. 10, 6697–6706 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

46. Rinehart, N. I. et al. A machine-learning tool to predict substrate-adaptive conditions for Pd-catalyzed C-N couplings. Science 381, 965–972 (2023).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

47. Schweidtmann, A. M. et al. Machine learning meets continuous flow chemistry: automated optimization towards the pareto front of multiple objectives. Chem. Eng. J. 352, 277–282 (2018).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

48. O’Connor, N. J., Jonayat, A. S. M., Janik, M. J. & Senftle, T. P. Interaction trends between single metal atoms and oxide supports identified with density functional theory and statistical learning. Nat. Catal. 1, 531–539 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

49. Foppa, L. et al. Materials genes of heterogeneous catalysis from clean experiments and artificial intelligence. MRS Bull. 46, 1016–1026 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

50. Zhao, S. et al. Enantiodivergent Pd-catalyzed C-C bond formation enabled through ligand parameterization. Science 362, 670–674 (2018).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

51. Timoshenko, J., Lu, D., Lin, Y. & Frenkel, A. I. Supervised machine-learning-based determination of three-dimensional structure of metallic nanoparticles. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 8, 5091–5098 (2017). Application of deep learning to solve metal catalyst from XANES, broadly applicable to the determination of nanoparticle structures in operando studies and generalizable to other nanoscale systems.

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

52. Zheng, C. et al. Automated generation and ensemble-learned matching of X-ray absorption spectra. NPJ Comput. Mater. 4, 12 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

53. Mitchell, S. et al. Automated image analysis for single-atom detection in catalytic materials by transmission electron microscopy. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 144, 8018–8029 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

54. Büchler, J. et al. Algorithm-aided engineering of aliphatic halogenase WelO5* for the asymmetric late-stage functionalization of soraphens. Nat. Commun. 13, 371 (2022).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

55. Wulf, C. et al. A unified research data infrastructure for catalysis research – challenges and concepts. ChemCatChem 13, 3223–3236 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

56. Mendes, P. S. F., Siradze, S., Pirro, L. & Thybaut, J. W. Open data in catalysis: from today’s big picture to the future of small data. ChemCatChem 13, 836–850 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

57. Marshall, C. P., Schumann, J. & Trunschke, A. Achieving digital catalysis: strategies for data acquisition, storage and use. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 62, e202302971 (2023).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

58. Zavyalova, U., Holena, M., Schlögl, R. & Baerns, M. Statistical analysis of past catalytic data on oxidative methane coupling for new insights into the composition of high-performance catalysts. ChemCatChem 3, 1935–1947 (2011).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

59. Odabasi, C., Gunay, M. E. & Yildrim, R. Knowledge extraction for water gas shift reaction over noble metal catalysts from publications in the literature between 2002 and 2012. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 39, 5733–5746 (2014).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

60. Suvarna, M., Araújo, T. P. & Pérez-Ramírez, J. A generalized machine learning framework to predict the space-time yield of methanol from thermocatalytic CO₂ hydrogenation. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 315, 121530 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

61. Mamun, O., Winther, K. T., Boes, J. R. & Bligaard, T. High-throughput calculations of catalytic properties of bimetallic alloy surfaces. Sci. Data 6, 76 (2019).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

62. Jinnouchi, R. & Asahi, R. Predicting catalytic activity of nanoparticles by a DFT-aided machine-learning algorithm. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 8, 4279–4283 (2017).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

63. Berman, H. M. et al. The protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Res. 28, 235–242 (2000).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

64. Mitchell, A. L. et al. InterPro in 2019: improving coverage, classification and access to protein sequence annotations. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, D351–D360 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

65. UniProt Consortium. UniProt: a worldwide hub of protein knowledge. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, D506–D515 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

66. Schomburg, I., Chang, A. & Schomburg, D. BRENDA, enzyme data and metabolic information. Nucleic Acids Res. 30, 47–49 (2002).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

67. Nagano, N. EzCatDB: the enzyme catalytic-mechanism database. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, D407–D412 (2005).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

68. Finnigan, W. et al. RetroBioCat as a computer-aided synthesis planning tool for biocatalytic reactions and cascades. Nat. Catal. 4, 98–104 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

69. Winther, K. T. et al. Catalysis-Hub.org, an open electronic structure database for surface reactions. Sci. Data 6, 75 (2019).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

70. Álvarez-Moreno, M. et al. Managing the computational chemistry big data problem: the ioChem-BD platform. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 55, 95–103 (2015).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

71. Gensch, T. et al. A comprehensive discovery platform for organophosphorus ligands for catalysis. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 144, 1205–1217 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

72. Bengio, Y., Courville, A. & Vincent, P. Representation learning: a review and new perspectives. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 35, 1798–1828 (2013).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

73. Schmidt, J., Marques, M. R. G., Botti, S. & Marques, M. A. L. Recent advances and applications of machine learning in solid-state materials science. NPJ Comput. Mater. 5, 83 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

74. Sanchez-Lengeling, B. & Aspuru-Guzik, A. Inverse molecular design using machine learning: generative models for matter engineering. Science 361, 360–365 (2018).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

75. Mitchell, J. B. O. Machine learning methods in chemoinformatics. WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci. 4, 468–481 (2014).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

76. Wigh, D. S., Goodman, J. M. & Lapkin, A. A. A review of molecular representation in the age of machine learning. WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci. 12, e1603 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

77. Krenn, M., Häse, F., Nigam, A., Friederich, P. & Aspuru-Guzik, A. Self-referencing embedded strings (SELFIES): a 100% robust molecular string representation. Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol. 1, 045024 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

78. Kononova, O. et al. Text-mined dataset of inorganic materials synthesis recipes. Sci. Data 6, 203 (2019).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

79. Olivetti, E. A. et al. Data-driven materials research enabled by natural language processing and information extraction. Appl. Phys. Rev. 7, 041317 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

80. Kim, E. et al. Materials synthesis insights from scientific literature via text extraction and machine learning. Chem. Mater. 29, 9436–9444 (2017).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

81. Jensen, Z. et al. A machine learning approach to zeolite synthesis enabled by automatic literature data extraction. ACS Cent. Sci. 5, 892–899 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

82. Luo, Y. et al. MOF synthesis prediction enabled by automatic data mining and machine learning. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 61, e202200242 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

83. Zheng, Z., Zhang, O., Borgs, C., Chayes, J. T. & Yaghi, O. M. ChatGPT chemistry assistant for text mining and the prediction of MOF synthesis. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 145, 18048–18062 (2023).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

84. Suvarna, M., Vaucher, A. C., Mitchell, S., Laino, T. & Pérez-Ramírez, J. Language models and protocol standardization guidelines for accelerating synthesis planning in heterogeneous catalysis. Nat. Commun. 14, 7964 (2023).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

85. Lai, N. S. et al. Artificial intelligence (AI) workflow for catalyst design and optimization. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 62, 17835–17848 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

86. Probst, D. et al. Biocatalysed synthesis planning using data-driven learning. Nat. Commun. 13, 964 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

87. Moon, J. et al. Active learning guides discovery of a champion four-metal perovskite oxide for oxygen evolution electrocatalysis. Nat. Mater. 23, 108–115 (2024).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

88. Zhong, M. et al. Accelerated discovery of CO₂ electrocatalysts using active machine learning. Nature 581, 178–183 (2020). Discovery of Cu-Al electrocatalysts, though DFT aided machine learning, to efficiently reduce CO₂ to ethylene with a Faradaic efficiency of 80%.

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

89. Torres, J. A. G. et al. A multi-objective active learning platform and web app for reaction optimization. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 144, 19999–20007 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

90. Greenhalgh, J. C., Fahlberg, S. A., Pfleger, B. F. & Romero, P. A. Machine learning-guided acyl-ACP reductase engineering for improved in vivo fatty alcohol production. Nat. Commun. 12, 5825 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

91. Tallorin, L. et al. Discovering de novo peptide substrates for enzymes using machine learning. Nat. Commun. 9, 5253 (2018).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

92. Schwaller, P. et al. Molecular transformer: a model for uncertainty-calibrated chemical reaction prediction. ACS Cent. Sci. 5, 1572–1583 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

93. Anstine, D. M. & Isayev, O. Generative models as an emerging paradigm in the chemical sciences. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 145, 8736–8750 (2023).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

94. Gómez-Bombarelli, R. et al. Automatic chemical design using a data-driven continuous representation of molecules. ACS Cent. Sci. 4, 268–276 (2018). A method to convert discrete representations of molecules into multidimensional continuous representations for generating compounds in silico.

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

95. Repecka, D. et al. Expanding functional protein sequence spaces using generative adversarial networks. Nat. Mach. Intell. 3, 324–333 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

96. Hawkins-Hooker, A. et al. Generating functional protein variants with variational autoencoders. PLoS Comput. Biol. 17, e1008736 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

97. Johnson, S. R. et al. Computational scoring and experimental evaluation of enzymes generated by neural networks. Preprint at https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.03.04.531015v1 (2023).

98. Schilter, O., Vaucher, A., Schwaller, P. & Laino, T. Designing catalysts with deep generative models and computational data. A case study for Suzuki cross coupling reactions. Digit. Discov. 2, 728–735 (2023).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

99. Kreutter, D., Schwaller, P. & Reymond, J.-L. Predicting enzymatic reactions with a molecular transformer. Chem. Sci. 12, 8648–8659 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

100. Popova, M., Isayev, O. & Tropsha, A. Deep reinforcement learning for de novo drug design. Sci. Adv. 4, eaap7885 (2018).

     Article 
     CAS 
     PubMed 
     PubMed Central 

     Google Scholar 

101. Zhou, Z., Li, X. & Zare, R. N. Optimizing chemical reactions with deep reinforcement learning. ACS Cent. Sci. 3, 1337–1344 (2017). A fully automated deep reinforcement learning to optimize chemical reactions where the model iteratively records the results of a chemical reaction and chooses new experimental conditions to improve the reaction outcome.

     Article 
     CAS 
     PubMed 
     PubMed Central 

     Google Scholar 

102. Lan, T. & An, Q. Discovering catalytic reaction networks using deep reinforcement learning from first-principles. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 143, 16804–16812 (2021).

     Article 
     CAS 
     PubMed 

     Google Scholar 

103. Song, Z. et al. Adaptive design of alloys for CO₂ activation and methanation via reinforcement learning Monte Carlo tree search algorithm. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 14, 3594–3601 (2023).

     Article 
     CAS 
     PubMed 

     Google Scholar 

104. Suvarna, M., Preikschas, P. & Pérez-Ramírez, J. Identifying descriptors for promoted rhodium-based catalysts for higher alcohol synthesis via machine learning. ACS Catal. 12, 15373–15385 (2022).

     Article 
     CAS 
     PubMed 
     PubMed Central 

     Google Scholar 

105. Smith, A., Keane, A., Dumesic, J. A., Huber, G. W. & Zavala, V. M. A machine learning framework for the analysis and prediction of catalytic activity from experimental data. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 263, 118257 (2020).

     Article 
     CAS 

     Google Scholar 

106. Vellayappan, K. et al. Impacts of catalyst and process parameters on Ni-catalyzed methane dry reforming via interpretable machine learning. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 330, 122593 (2023).

     Article 
     CAS 

     Google Scholar 

107. Roh, J. et al. Interpretable machine learning framework for catalyst performance prediction and validation with dry reforming of methane. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 343, 123454 (2024).

     Article 
     CAS 

     Google Scholar 

108. McCullough, K., Williams, T., Mingle, K., Jamshidi, P. & Lauterbach, J. High-throughput experimentation meets artificial intelligence: a new pathway to catalyst discovery. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 22, 11174–11196 (2020).

     Article 
     CAS 
     PubMed 

     Google Scholar 

109. Suzuki, K. et al. Statistical analysis and discovery of heterogeneous catalysts based on machine learning from diverse published data. ChemCatChem 11, 4537–4547 (2019).

     Article 
     CAS 

     Google Scholar 

110. Butler, K. T., Davies, D. W., Cartwright, H., Isayev, O. & Walsh, A. Machine learning for molecular and materials science. Nature 559, 547–555 (2018).

     Article 
     CAS 
     PubMed 

     Google Scholar 

111. Oviedo, F., Ferres, J. L., Buonassisi, T. & Butler, K. T. Interpretable and explainable machine learning for materials science and chemistry. Acc. Mater. Res. 3, 597–607 (2022).

     Article 
     CAS 

     Google Scholar 

112. Esterhuizen, J. A., Goldsmith, B. R. & Linic, S. Interpretable machine learning for knowledge generation in heterogeneous catalysis. Nat. Catal. 5, 175–184 (2022).

     Article 

     Google Scholar 

113. Wu, K. & Doyle, A. G. Parameterization of phosphine ligands demonstrates enhancement of nickel catalysis via remote steric effects. Nat. Chem. 9, 779–784 (2017).

     Article 
     CAS 
     PubMed 
     PubMed Central 

     Google Scholar 

114. Weng, B. et al. Simple descriptor derived from symbolic regression accelerating the discovery of new perovskite catalysts. Nat. Commun. 11, 3513 (2020).

     Article 
     CAS 
     PubMed 
     PubMed Central 

     Google Scholar 

115. Ouyang, R., Curtarolo, S., Ahmetcik, E., Scheffler, M. & Ghiringhelli, L. M. SISSO: a compressed-sensing method for identifying the best low-dimensional descriptor in an immensity of offered candidates. Phys. Rev. Mater. 2, 083802 (2018).

     Article 
     CAS 

     Google Scholar 

116. Foppa, L. et al. Data-centric heterogeneous catalysis: identifying rules and materials genes of alkane selective oxidation. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 145, 3427–3442 (2023).

     Article 
     CAS 
     PubMed 
     PubMed Central 

     Google Scholar 

117. Li, Z., Ma, X. & Xin, H. Feature engineering of machine-learning chemisorption models for catalyst design. Catal. Today 280, 232–238 (2017).

     Article 
     CAS 

     Google Scholar 

118. Lundberg, S. M. et al. From local explanations to global understanding with explainable AI for trees. Nat. Mach. Intell. 2, 56–67 (2020).

     Article 
     PubMed 
     PubMed Central 

     Google Scholar 

119. Timoshenko, J. et al. Linking the evolution of catalytic properties and structural changes in copper-zinc nanocatalysts using operando EXAFS and neural-networks. Chem. Sci. 11, 3727–3736 (2020).

     Article 
     CAS 
     PubMed 
     PubMed Central 

     Google Scholar 

120. Wilkinson, M. D. et al. The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3, 160018 (2016).

     Article 
     PubMed 
     PubMed Central 

     Google Scholar 

121. Scheffler, M. et al. FAIR data enabling new horizons for materials research. Nature 604, 635–642 (2022).

     Article 
     CAS 
     PubMed 

     Google Scholar 

122. Abolhasani, M. & Kumacheva, E. The rise of self-driving labs in chemical and materials sciences. Nat. Synth. 2, 483–492 (2023). A review of self-driving labs through the integration of machine learning, lab automation and robotics to accelerate digital data curation and enable data-driven discoveries in chemical sciences.

     Article 

     Google Scholar 

123. MacLeod, B. P. et al. Self-driving laboratory for accelerated discovery of thin-film materials. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz8867 (2020).

     Article 
     CAS 
     PubMed 
     PubMed Central 

     Google Scholar 

Download references