Similar to the enthalpy for adsorbed CH 2 in Figure , the enthalpy obtained through DFT, LSR, and ML are very close to the DFT uncertainty for most of the species in the model. All the ML estimated enthalpies are within the uncertainty of the DFT data. However, the enthalpy of CH 3 * estimated by LSR is outside of the DFT uncertainties as shown in 3c. The the largest enthalpy of formation di↵erence between ML and DFT is 27 kJ/mol for CO* (Figure ), while largest enthalpy disagreement between LSR and DFT is 34 kJ/mol for CH 3 * (Figure ). The thermodynamic comparison for the rest of the species in the model can be found in the supplementary material. the DFT values are used for all three models. The convention recommended by Ruscic for thermochemical uncertainties is used in Figure and throughout this paper, i.e. reporting the 2 values as the uncertainties, since they encompass approximately 95% of a normal distribution. These uncertainties were used as the prior distribution in the BPE, as described in Section 2.5. The largest binding energy disagreement estimated by LSR and ML compared to DFT is about 30 kJ/mol among all the species in the model, so using the LSR and ML models to generate the thermodynamic data in microkinetic modeling is reasonably reliable compared to DFT results for small molecules, considering the relative uncertainties inherent in DFT.