REFERENCES

1. Lee, Y.; Ly, T. T.; Lee, T.; et al. Completing the picture of initial oxidation on copper. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2021, 562, 150148.

2. Lee, G.; Lee, Y.; Palotás, K.; Lee, T.; Soon, A. Atomic structure and work function modulations in two-dimensional ultrathin CuI films on Cu(111) from first-principles calculations. J. Phys. Chem. C. 2020, 124, 16362-70.

3. Lee, S.; Lee, Y. J.; Lee, G.; Soon, A. Activated chemical bonds in nanoporous and amorphous iridium oxides favor low overpotential for oxygen evolution reaction. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 3171.

4. Lee, T.; Soon, A. The rise of ab initio surface thermodynamics. Nat. Catal. 2024, 7, 4-6.

5. Wu, Y. A.; Mcnulty, I.; Liu, C.; et al. Facet-dependent active sites of a single Cu₂O particle photocatalyst for CO₂ reduction to methanol. Nat. Energy. 2019, 4, 957-68.

6. Wang, W.; Ning, H.; Fei, X.; et al. Trace ionic liquid-assisted orientational growth of Cu₂ O (110) facets promote CO₂ electroreduction to C₂ products. ChemSusChem 2023, 16, e202300418.

7. Chen, H.; Fan, T.; Ji, Y. CO₂ reduction mechanism on the Cu₂ O(110) surface: a first-principles study. Chemphyschem 2023, 24, e202300047.

8. Eilert, A.; Cavalca, F.; Roberts, F. S.; et al. Subsurface oxygen in oxide-derived copper electrocatalysts for carbon dioxide reduction. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2017, 8, 285-90.

9. Favaro, M.; Xiao, H.; Cheng, T.; Goddard, W. A. 3rd; Yano, J.; Crumlin, E. J. Subsurface oxide plays a critical role in CO₂ activation by Cu(111) surfaces to form chemisorbed CO₂, the first step in reduction of CO₂. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2017, 114, 6706-11.

10. Fields, M.; Hong, X.; Nørskov, J. K.; Chan, K. Role of subsurface oxygen on Cu surfaces for CO₂ electrochemical reduction. J. Phys. Chem. C. 2018, 122, 16209-15.

11. Zhu, B.; Huang, W.; Lin, H.; et al. Vacancy ordering in ultrathin copper oxide films on Cu(111). J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2024, 146, 15887-96.

12. Chen, D.; Chen, L.; Zhao, Q.; Yang, Z.; Shang, C.; Liu, Z. Square-pyramidal subsurface oxygen [Ag₄OAg] drives selective ethene epoxidation on silver. Nat. Catal. 2024, 7, 536-45.

13. Vilhelmsen, L. B.; Hammer, B. A genetic algorithm for first principles global structure optimization of supported nano structures. J. Chem. Phys. 2014, 141, 044711.

14. Wang, Y.; Lv, J.; Zhu, L.; Ma, Y. CALYPSO: a method for crystal structure prediction. Comput. Phys. Commun. 2012, 183, 2063-70.

15. Glass, C. W.; Oganov, A. R.; Hansen, N. USPEX - evolutionary crystal structure prediction. Comput. Phys. Commun. 2006, 175, 713-20.

16. Kim, H. J.; Lee, G.; Oh, S. V.; Stampfl, C.; Soon, A. Recalibrating the experimentally derived structure of the metastable surface oxide on copper via machine learning-accelerated in silico global optimization. ACS. Nano. 2024, 18, 4559-69.

17. Jung, H.; Sauerland, L.; Stocker, S.; Reuter, K.; Margraf, J. T. Machine-learning driven global optimization of surface adsorbate geometries. npj. Comput. Mater. 2023, 9, 114.

18. Lee, Y.; Lee, T. Machine-learning-accelerated surface exploration of reconstructed BiVO₄(010) and characterization of their aqueous interfaces. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2025, 147, 7799-808.

19. Tong, Q.; Xue, L.; Lv, J.; Wang, Y.; Ma, Y. Accelerating CALYPSO structure prediction by data-driven learning of a potential energy surface. Faraday. Discuss. 2018, 211, 31-43.

20. Bisbo, M. K.; Hammer, B. Global optimization of atomic structure enhanced by machine learning. Phys. Rev. B. 2022, 105, 245404.

21. Merte, L. R.; Bisbo, M. K.; Sokolović, I.; et al. Structure of an ultrathin oxide on Pt₃Sn(111) solved by machine learning enhanced global optimization. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 2022, 61, e202204244.

22. Rønne, N.; Christiansen, M. V.; Slavensky, A. M.; et al. Atomistic structure search using local surrogate model. J. Chem. Phys. 2022, 157, 174115.

23. Kaappa, S.; Del Río, E. G.; Jacobsen, K. W. Global optimization of atomic structures with gradient-enhanced Gaussian process regression. Phys. Rev. B. 2021, 103, 174114.

24. Kaappa, S.; Larsen, C.; Jacobsen, K. W. Atomic structure optimization with machine-learning enabled interpolation between chemical elements. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2021, 127, 166001.

25. Larsen, C.; Kaappa, S.; Vishart, A. L.; Bligaard, T.; Jacobsen, K. W. Machine-learning-enabled optimization of atomic structures using atoms with fractional existence. Phys. Rev. B. 2023, 107, 214101.

26. Goldsmith, B. R.; Florian, J.; Liu, J.; et al. Two-to-three dimensional transition in neutral gold clusters: the crucial role of van der Waals interactions and temperature. Phys. Rev. Mater. 2019, 3, 016002.

27. Kruglov, I. A.; Yanilkin, A. V.; Propad, Y.; Mazitov, A. B.; Rachitskii, P.; Oganov, A. R. Crystal structure prediction at finite temperatures. npj. Comput. Mater. 2023, 9, 197.

28. Kresse, G.; Hafner, J. Ab initio molecular dynamics for liquid metals. Phys. Rev. B. 1993, 47, 558.

29. Kresse, G.; Furthmüller, J. Efficient iterative schemes for ab initio total-energy calculations using a plane-wave basis set. Phys. Rev. B. Condens. Matter. 1996, 54, 11169-86.

30. Kresse, G.; Joubert, D. From ultrasoft pseudopotentials to the projector augmented-wave method. Phys. Rev. B. 1999, 59, 1758.

31. Perdew, J. P.; Burke, K.; Ernzerhof, M. Generalized gradient approximation made simple. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1996, 77, 3865-8.

32. Chen, X.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, L.; Li, J. Recent progresses of global minimum searches of nanoclusters with a constrained Basin-Hopping algorithm in the TGMin program. Comput. Theor. Chem. 2017, 1107, 57-65.

33. Peterson, A. A. Global optimization of adsorbate–surface structures while preserving molecular identity. Top. Catal. 2013, 57, 40-53.

34. Hjorth Larsen, A.; Jørgen Mortensen, J.; Blomqvist, J.; et al. The atomic simulation environment-a Python library for working with atoms. J. Phys. Condens. Matter. 2017, 29, 273002.

35. Kingma, D. P. Welling, M.. Auto-encoding variational bayes. arXiv 2013, arXiv:1312.6114. Available online: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1312.6114. (accessed 30 Mar 2026).

36. Diederik, P. K.; Max, W. An introduction to variational autoencoders. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1906.02691. Available online: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1906.02691. (accessed 30 Mar 2026).

37. Veličković, P.; Cucurull, G.; Casanova, A.; Romero, A.; Liò, P.; Bengio, Y. Graph attention networks. arXiv 2017, arXiv:1710.10903. Available online: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1710.10903. (accessed 30 Mar 2026).

38. Yang, X. S. Firefly algorithms for multimodal optimization. In Stochastic Algorithms: Foundations and Applications; Watanabe, O., Zeugmann, T., Eds.; Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5792; Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009; pp 169-78.

39. Togo, A.; Shinohara, K.; Tanaka, I. Spglib: a software library for crystal symmetry search. Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. Methods. 2024, 4, 2384822.

40. Kuhn, H. W. The Hungarian method for the assignment problem. Nav. Res. Logist. 2006, 2, 83-97.

41. Batzner, S.; Musaelian, A.; Sun, L.; et al. E(3)-equivariant graph neural networks for data-efficient and accurate interatomic potentials. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 2453.

42. Yoo, D.; Kweon, I. S. Learning loss for active learning. In 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Long Beach, USA, June 15-20, 2019; IEEE, 2019; pp. 93-102.

43. Avendaño-Franco, G.; Romero, A. H. Firefly algorithm for structural search. J. Chem. Theory. Comput. 2016, 12, 3416-28.

44. Mitra, A.; Jana, G.; Agrawal, P.; Sural, S.; Chattaraj, P. K. Integrating firefly algorithm with density functional theory for global optimization of Al₄^2- clusters. Theor. Chem. Acc. 2020, 139, 32.

45. Schran, C.; Thiemann, F. L.; Rowe, P.; Müller, E. A.; Marsalek, O.; Michaelides, A. Machine learning potentials for complex aqueous systems made simple. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2021, 118, e2110077118.

46. Tokita, A. M.; Behler, J. How to train a neural network potential. J. Chem. Phys. 2023, 159, 121501.

47. Kang, K.; Purcell, T. A. R.; Carbogno, C.; Scheffler, M. Accelerating the training and improving the reliability of machine-learned interatomic potentials for strongly anharmonic materials through active learning. Phys. Rev. Mater. 2025, 9, 063801.

48. Tan, A. R.; Urata, S.; Goldman, S.; Dietschreit, J. C. B.; Gómez-bombarelli, R. Single-model uncertainty quantification in neural network potentials does not consistently outperform model ensembles. npj. Comput. Mater. 2023, 9, 225.

49. Kabsch, W. A solution for the best rotation to relate two sets of vectors. Acta. Cryst. A. 1976, 32, 922-3.

50. Xie, Y.; Vandermause, J.; Sun, L.; Cepellotti, A.; Kozinsky, B. Bayesian force fields from active learning for simulation of inter-dimensional transformation of stanene. npj. Comput. Mater. 2021, 7, 40.

51. Christiansen, M. V.; Rønne, N.; Hammer, B. Efficient ensemble uncertainty estimation in Gaussian processes regression. Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol. 2024, 5, 045029.

52. Bisbo, M. K.; Hammer, B. Efficient global structure optimization with a machine-learned surrogate model. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2020, 124, 086102.

53. Bauer, M. N.; Probert, M. I. J.; Panosetti, C. Systematic comparison of genetic algorithm and basin hopping approaches to the global optimization of Si(111) surface reconstructions. J. Phys. Chem. A. 2022, 126, 3043-56.