Data foundation and harmonization
Extract and normalize composition, support, active-site structure, electrolyte, potential scale, loading, product analysis, stability protocol and provenance across literature and client datasets.
Prioritize experimentally testable electrocatalysts by combining traceable data, electrochemical descriptors, physics-aware machine learning, density functional theory (DFT), and active learning.
Electrocatalyst discovery is rarely a single-property ranking exercise. Practical candidates must satisfy activity, selectivity, durability, precious-metal loading, electrolyte compatibility, synthesis feasibility, and test-protocol constraints at the same time. A catalyst that looks excellent under one potential, pH, loading, or product metric can fail once selectivity, stability, or scale-up constraints are added.
CD ComputaBio provides an AI-guided electrocatalyst discovery workflow that combines curated experimental data, DFT-derived descriptors, graph and structure-aware models, active learning, and expert electrochemical interpretation. The goal is not only to output a list of predicted materials, but to generate a defensible, experiment-ready candidate portfolio with uncertainty, rationale, and validation priorities.
Each module can be commissioned independently or integrated into a staged program, from rapid feasibility assessment to closed-loop optimization.
Extract and normalize composition, support, active-site structure, electrolyte, potential scale, loading, product analysis, stability protocol and provenance across literature and client datasets.
Build interpretable descriptors and ML models for adsorption, limiting potential, selectivity windows, activity trends and uncertainty; benchmark against transparent baselines.
Run targeted DFT or higher-level calculations for decision-critical candidates, including adsorption energetics, reaction free energies, scaling-relation deviations and solvation or field corrections where needed.
Select the next most informative calculations or experiments by expected improvement, uncertainty reduction, diversity and practical feasibility.
Prioritize candidates by Pareto performance across activity, selectivity, stability, abundance, synthesis accessibility and IP-sensitive chemistry constraints.
Deliver ranked candidates, reasoning, model limits, test matrix, controls and go/no-go criteria that electrochemistry teams can act on directly.
The workflow is organized as a decision table so scope, evidence quality and next actions remain clear throughout the project.
| Project stage | Key activities | Decision output |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Decision framing | Define target reaction, product metric, baseline, electrolyte, potential, durability threshold and forbidden chemistries. | A scoped discovery question with measurable success criteria. |
| 2. Data build | Curate public and client data; harmonize units, RHE conversion, catalyst loading, test geometry, product quantification and quality flags. | Auditable dataset and evidence map. |
| 3. Model development | Train descriptor, graph, ensemble or hybrid models; evaluate leakage, calibration, uncertainty and applicability domain. | Validated model card and candidate search space. |
| 4. Candidate triage | Apply feasibility filters, Pareto ranking, diversity clustering and targeted DFT verification for high-impact candidates. | Shortlist with rationale and risk labels. |
| 5. Validation design | Specify synthesis/test conditions, controls, replicate strategy, expected signals and stopping rules. | Experiment-ready plan for the next discovery cycle. |
| Deliverable | What is included |
|---|---|
| Data package | Versioned tables, schema, units, provenance, exclusions, RHE conversions, protocol notes and quality-control summary. |
| Model package | Model card, features, split strategy, metrics, calibration plots, applicability domain and reproducible scripts or notebooks where appropriate. |
| Candidate portfolio | Ranked and Pareto candidates with uncertainty intervals, chemistry rationale, diversity clusters and experimental feasibility flags. |
| Validation dossier | DFT inputs/outputs or experiment-ready test matrix, recommended controls, expected product analysis and go/no-go rules. |
| Decision review | Scientist-led review of model confidence, limitations, next-batch recommendation and options for a closed-loop follow-up. |
These studies illustrate how interpretable descriptors, high-throughput screening and AI-assisted experiments can reduce expensive calculations and focus validation on higher-value candidates.
Submit your project details below, and our team will respond within 24 hours.
Talk to our technical team about your project!
I Want To Talk