Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,378

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Open Quantum Materials Database (OQMD): assessing the accuracy of DFT formation energies

Open access
Kirklin, Scott, Saal, James E, Meredig, Bryce, Thompson, Alex, Doak, Jeff W, Aykol, Muratahan, Rühl, Stephan, Wolverton, Chris·2015·npj Computational Materials

Abstract

The Open Quantum Materials Database (OQMD) is a high-throughput database currently consisting of nearly 300,000 density functional theory (DFT) total energy calculations of compounds from the Inorganic Crystal Structure Database (ICSD) and decorations of commonly occurring crystal structures. To maximise the impact of these data, the entire database is being made available, without restrictions, at www.oqmd.org/download. In this paper, we outline the structure and contents of the database, and then use it to evaluate the accuracy of the calculations therein by comparing DFT predictions with experimental measurements for the stability of all elemental ground-state structures and 1,670 experimental formation energies of compounds. This represents the largest comparison between DFT and experimental formation energies to date. The apparent mean absolute error between experimental measurements and our calculations is 0.096 eV/atom. In order to estimate how much error to attribute to the DFT calculations, we also examine deviation between different experimental measurements themselves where multiple sources are available, and find a surprisingly large mean absolute error of 0.082 eV/atom. Hence, we suggest that a significant fraction of the error between DFT and experimental formation energies may be attributed to experimental uncertainties. Finally, we evaluate the stability of compounds in the OQMD (including compounds obtained from the ICSD as well as hypothetical structures), which allows us to predict the existence of ~3,200 new compounds that have not been experimentally characterised and uncover trends in material discovery, based on historical data available within the ICSD.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/npjcompumats.2015.10

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 55 references

Cited by

See all 2,378

Metadata

Authors
Kirklin, S., Saal, J. E., Meredig, B., Thompson, A., Doak, J. W., Aykol, M., Rühl, S., & Wolverton, C.
Venue
npj Computational Materials
Published
2015-12-11
Volume
1
Issue
1
ISSN
2057-3960 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2278970271
Cited by
2,378
References
55
FWCI
20.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Open Quantum Materials Database (OQMD): assessing the accuracy of DFT formation energies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/npjcompumats.2015.10
The paper
Kirklin, S., Saal, J. E., Meredig, B., Thompson, A., Doak, J. W., Aykol, M., Rühl, S., & Wolverton, C. (2015). The Open Quantum Materials Database (OQMD): assessing the accuracy of DFT formation energies. npj Computational Materials. https://doi.org/10.1038/npjcompumats.2015.10

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.