Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 2 cited by

Generative AI for Crystal Structures: A Review

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This review maps the design space of generative crystal models and argues that fragmented evaluation makes current model comparisons unreliable.

desk verdict A useful, current taxonomy of generative crystal-structure models whose benchmarking critique overreaches in spots but is worth reading and refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.02723 v1 pith:PAYBYJW6 submitted 2025-09-02 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Pierre-Paul De Breuck , Hai-Chen Wang , Gian-Marco Rignanese , Silvana Botti , Miguel A. L. Marques This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords generativemodelscrystalstructuregenerationmaterialsdiscoverytaxonomyevaluationmetricsbenchmarkingdiffusionWyckoffpositions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This review tries to establish a structured map of the fast-growing field of generative AI for crystal structures and to argue that the field's evaluation practices are not yet trustworthy enough for head-to-head model comparison. It surveys more than fifty models, organizes them by representation, architecture, conditioning, and material domain, and shows that the same metric names mean different things in different papers. The practical stake is that a materials scientist cannot currently tell from published numbers which generator is best for discovering a new stable compound, so the field needs standardized benchmarks before generative models can be reliably deployed in screening pipelines.

What carries the argument

The review's organizing device is a two-dimensional design space: representation (how a crystal is encoded—point cloud, voxel grid, graph, reciprocal space, or Wyckoff positions, the symmetry-defined sets of equivalent atomic sites) crossed with architecture (VAE, GAN, transformer, normalizing flow, diffusion, or fine-tuned language model), with conditioning and material domain as additional axes. This grid lets the authors place each model, identify unexplored combinations, and structure the survey. The evaluation discussion then hinges on the claim that no metric in this space is standardized across studies.

What would settle it

Apply a single fixed evaluation protocol to a set of current models—same training set, same frozen convex hull, same structure-matching algorithm, same stability threshold—and check whether the resulting rankings agree with the rankings in the original papers; agreement would undercut the claim that no meaningful cross-model comparison currently exists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central assertion is that generative models for inorganic crystals—spanning variational autoencoders, GANs, transformers, normalizing flows, diffusion models, and fine-tuned language models—have moved from proof-of-concept demonstrations on restricted chemistry to broad, symmetry-aware generators, but the field has not yet built the measurement tools needed to know which models actually work. It organizes more than fifty models into a four-pillar taxonomy of representation, architecture, conditioning, and material domain, and argues that the absence of standardized evaluation—varying test splits, matching algorithms, convex hull references, stability thresholds, and metric definitions—makes existing cross-model performance comparisons unreliable. The review therefore deliberately avoids ranking models and instead calls for community-maintained benchmarks with frozen hulls, fixed training sets, and explicit cost reporting.

Load-bearing premise

The review's map of the field is only as complete as its taxonomy: if a meaningful design dimension, such as training objective, or a substantial model family has been left out, the survey's conclusions about which approaches exist and which gaps matter would be incomplete.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • No published ranking of generative crystal models should be read as a reliable comparison until a common evaluation protocol is applied.
  • Reported validity, coverage, stability, and novelty numbers from different papers are not commensurable; a model that appears better may simply have been tested more leniently.
  • Progress in generative materials AI will be judged by downstream DFT relaxation, stability against competing phases, and ultimately synthesis, rather than by generation statistics alone.
  • Community-maintained benchmarks with frozen convex hulls, fixed training and test sets, and standardized structure-matching algorithms are a necessary next step for the field.
  • Efficiency and scalability, which most current benchmarks ignore, need to become standard parts of any evaluation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If standardized benchmarks are adopted, some of the apparent quality gaps between current models may shrink, since part of those gaps likely comes from differences in test-set difficulty and metric definitions rather than from model capability.
  • The taxonomy's conditioning axis could be sharpened by distinguishing hard constraints (exact composition or space group) from soft property guidance (a numeric band gap or stability target); the review treats both as conditioning, which may hide what models can actually control.
  • A common benchmark would enable a second-order analysis this review does not attempt: attributing raw gains to specific representation–architecture combinations and turning the taxonomy into a predictive map of the field.
  • The same fragmentation of evaluation very likely affects neighboring areas such as molecular inverse design, so the benchmarking standards argued for here could transfer beyond crystals.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a survey of generative models for inorganic crystal structures. It covers the probabilistic foundations of generative modeling, common architectures (VAEs, GANs, transformers, normalizing flows, diffusion models, and fine-tuned LLMs), invertible crystal representations (point cloud, voxel, graph, reciprocal space, Wyckoff positions), and public data sources. Its main organizational contribution is a four-pillar taxonomy—representation, architecture, conditioning, and materials domain—used in Tables II and III to classify more than fifty models, together with a two-dimensional map in Figure 3. The paper then reviews evaluation metrics and argues that fragmented protocols (test splits, matching algorithms, convex-hull references, thresholds) make cross-model comparisons unreliable, so the review deliberately refrains from benchmarking. It closes with applications and a future-directions agenda.

Significance. Should the taxonomy and benchmarking discussion be made internally consistent, this will be a useful reference for a rapidly growing field. The comprehensive Table III and Figure 3 give researchers a compact map of the model landscape, and the explicit decision not to produce a head-to-head ranking is a judicious response to the genuine absence of common evaluation standards. The paper also usefully names concrete sources of non-comparability. The main weaknesses are internal: the conditioning column of the taxonomy is applied inconsistently, and the blanket claim that cross-model comparisons are unreliable sits in tension with several comparative statements in the text. These are fixable with targeted revisions and do not invalidate the survey's core value.

major comments (2)
  1. [V and IV.E] Section V states that the absence of standardized metrics 'collectively undermine[s] meaningful cross-model comparisons' and that the review therefore does not attempt to compare models because 'the absence of standardized metrics currently makes such evaluations unreliable.' The support given is a list of ways evaluation practice varies, not a systematic audit of the protocols used by the models in Table III. This universal negative is also in tension with specific comparative statements elsewhere in the manuscript: Section IV.E reports that FlowMM 'outperformed prior methods like CDVAE and DiffCSP in accuracy and stability,' and Section V itself reports that TGDMat required only 500 training epochs versus more than 3000 for CDVAE and DiffCSP. If those comparisons used shared test sets, matching algorithms, hull references, and thresholds, then the blanket claim is too strong; if they did not, the review should attribute them to the original papers and explicitly flag them as unverified. Please weaken the claim to 'many' or 'most' evaluations, or add a protocol-by-protocol audit showing that no reliable comparison exists.
  2. [IV and Table III] Section IV defines the conditioning pillar by stating that models are marked 'yes' in Table III 'only when the authors explicitly demonstrate conditioning on any functional property.' Table III does not follow this definition: CondGAN, MatGAN, GANCSP, CubicGAN, and VGD-CG are marked 'Yes' although their conditioning is on composition, which is listed in Table II as a separate conditioning value rather than a functional property; DiffCSP is marked 'Yes' although Section IV.B does not describe any conditioning for it, while DiffCSP++, which Section IV.B explicitly describes as conditioning on space group, is marked 'No.' In addition, the 'Domain' column lists 'Compositions' for several rows, conflating a conditioning target with a materials domain. Please re-code Table III or revise the definitions in Section IV so that the two columns are mutually consistent and match the surrounding text.
minor comments (7)
  1. [IV.E] CrystalFlow is cited as reference [91], but reference [91] is CrysBFN; the CrystalFlow entry appears to correspond to reference [93].
  2. [IV.F] StructRepDiff is cited as reference [75], but reference [75] is NSGAN; the correct citation appears to be reference [78].
  3. [IV.B and Table III] The same model is spelled 'GemmsDiff' in Section IV.B and 'GemsDiff' in Table III; please unify the spelling.
  4. [V] The acronym S.U.N. is used without being expanded; please spell it out on first use, presumably as Stability, Uniqueness, and Novelty.
  5. [VI.A] The sentence 'it generated 10 million candidates—recovering most known cubic crystals from MP and ICSD and identified 24 novel prototypes' mixes participles; please revise for grammar.
  6. [Abstract and Section IV] The abstract and Section VIII call the survey comprehensive, but the inclusion criteria and literature cutoff for Table III are not stated; a sentence specifying the search scope and cutoff date would help readers assess coverage.
  7. [Figure 2 caption] The caption for panel (c) reads 'autoregressive transformer (MLPs),' which appears to be a typo; the panel should be labeled simply 'autoregressive transformer'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review's taxonomy and evaluation critique are descriptive assessments, and the authors' self-citations serve as data or context rather than as load-bearing derivations.

full rationale

This paper is a literature review, not a derivation with fitted parameters or predictive claims. Its central contributions are (i) a taxonomy based on representation, architecture, conditioning, and materials domain, and (ii) an argument that evaluation standards are fragmented and cross-model comparisons are unreliable. Neither contribution is derived from an equation or from the authors' prior results. The taxonomy is a classification scheme applied to cited works; its validity depends on the selection and reading of those works, not on a circular construction. The evaluation critique is supported by cited external discussions (refs. 116-118) and by the review's own enumeration of varying test splits, matching algorithms, convex hulls, and thresholds; this is an assessment, not a prediction, and it is not equivalent to its inputs. The authors do cite their own database Alexandria (refs. 31-32), their own model Matra-Genoa (ref. 41), their own uMLIP-phonons paper (ref. 115), and an earlier benchmarking-methodology paper (ref. 133), but none of these citations carries the load of the review's main conclusions. For example, the statement that Alexandria 'enables significant improvement in quality' for MatterGen and Matra-Genoa is an editorial comment about data scale, not a derived result that the review's arguments depend on. A genuine tension exists between Section IV.E, which reports that FlowMM 'outperformed prior methods like CDVAE and DiffCSP in accuracy and stability,' and Section V, which states that 'the absence of standardized metrics currently makes such evaluations unreliable.' That tension concerns the strength and consistency of the review's support for its universal negative, not circularity: the review explicitly declines to perform its own benchmarks and is repeating claims from the original FlowMM paper. Under the stated rules, this is a correctness or proportionality concern, not a reduction of a claim to its own inputs. No equation is defined in terms of a claimed result, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The review is therefore self-contained as a survey, with no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review's conclusions rest on the sufficiency of its taxonomy, the representativeness of its cited literature, and the purported absence of standardized benchmarks. These are domain assumptions rather than derived facts.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The four-pillar taxonomy (representation, architecture, conditioning, materials domain) is a sufficient organizing scheme for current generative models.
    Section IV introduces this taxonomy and builds Tables II and III on it; if a major axis (for example training objective or evaluation metric) is missing, the map of the field is incomplete.
  • domain assumption The cited set of papers is representative and accurately described.
    The review covers more than 50 models selected by the authors; no systematic inclusion or exclusion criteria are stated in Sections III or IV, so completeness and accuracy are assumed.
  • domain assumption The absence of standardized benchmarks is a genuine and unresolved problem.
    Section V argues this from the reviewed literature, supported by cited examples of varying convex hull thresholds and matching algorithms, but the claim itself is not formally demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generative AI for Crystal Structures: A Review." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PAYBYJW6

@misc{pith2026250902723,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generative AI for Crystal Structures: A Review},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PAYBYJW6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02723}
}
read the original abstract

As in many other fields, the rapid rise of generative artificial intelligence is reshaping materials discovery by offering new ways to propose crystal structures and, in some cases, even predict desired properties. This review provides a comprehensive survey of recent advancements in generative models specifically for inorganic crystalline materials. We begin by introducing the fundamentals of generative modeling and invertible material descriptors. We then propose a taxonomy based on architecture, representation, conditioning, and materials domain to categorize the diverse range of current generative AI models. We discuss data sources and address challenges related to performance metrics, emphasizing the need for standardized benchmarks. Specific examples and applications of novel generated structures are presented. Finally, we examine current limitations and future directions in this rapidly evolving field, highlighting its potential to accelerate the discovery of new inorganic materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.02723 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic overview of generative AI for crystal struc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. 1. Variational Autoencoders (VAEs) Variational autoencoders (VAEs), introduced by Kingma and Welling [11], combine dimensionality re￾duction with probabilistic generative modeling. They extend the classical autoencoder architecture, i.e., an en￾coder network that maps a high-dimensional input x to a lower-dimensional latent vector z and a decoder network [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Schematic overviews of the main generative model architectures. (a) variational autoencoder (VAE), (b) generative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Schematic representation of the taxonomy of models in a two-dimensional architecture–representation space. The space [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Examples of generated structures by a) cubicGAN, b) iMatGen, c) CrystaLLM, d) MatterGen, and e) Matra-Genoa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Discovery and recovery of crystalline materials with property-conditioned transformers

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Conditioning the attention layers of a crystal-writing transformer on continuous property values enables XRD-based structure recovery and targeted generation of photovoltaic candidates.

  2. AtomBench: A Benchmarking Framework for Generative Crystal Reconstruction Models in Conventional Superconductors

    cs.LG 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    On two superconductor datasets, CDVAE best reproduces lattice parameters while AtomGPT (full text) or MatterGen (abstract) best reproduces atomic coordinates, but the comparison is confounded by unequal input information.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

138 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    N. S. Lewis, Toward cost-effective solar energy use, Sci- ence 315, 798 (2007)

    2007

  2. [2]

    C. L. Magee, Towards quantification of the role of ma- terials innovation in overall technological development, Complexity 18, 10 (2012)

    2012

  3. [3]

    G. J. Snyder and E. S. Toberer, Complex thermoelec- tric materials, inMaterials for Sustainable Energy(Co- Published with Macmillan Publishers Ltd, UK, 2010) pp. 101–110

    2010

  4. [4]

    A.R.OganovandC.W.Glass,Crystalstructurepredic- tion using ab initio evolutionary techniques: Principles and applications, J. Chem. Phys.124, 244704 (2006)

    2006

  5. [5]

    E. V. Podryabinkin, E. V. Tikhonov, A. V. Shapeev, and A. R. Oganov, Accelerating crystal structure pre- diction by machine-learning interatomic potentials with active learning, Phys. Rev. B99, 064114 (2019)

    2019

  6. [6]

    C. J. Pickard and R. J. Needs, Ab initio random struc- ture searching, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter23, 053201 (2011)

    2011

  7. [7]

    Y. Wang, J. Lv, L. Zhu, and Y. Ma, Crystal structure prediction via particle-swarm optimization, Phys. Rev. B 82, 094116 (2010)

    2010

  8. [8]

    Goedecker, Minima hopping: An efficient search method for the global minimum of the potential energy surface of complex molecular systems, J

    S. Goedecker, Minima hopping: An efficient search method for the global minimum of the potential energy surface of complex molecular systems, J. Chem. Phys. 120, 9911 (2004)

    2004

Show all 138 references
  1. [9]

    Yamashita, K

    T. Yamashita, K. , Shinichi, S. , Nobuya, K. , Hiori, T. , Kei, S. , Hikaru, S. , Takumi, U. , Futoshi, T. , Koji, M. , Takashi, and T. and Oguchi, CrySPY: A crystal structure prediction tool accelerated by ma- chine learning, Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater.: Methods1, 87 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Falls, P

    Z. Falls, P. Avery, X. Wang, K. P. Hilleke, and E. Zurek, The XtalOpt evolutionary algorithm for crystal struc- ture prediction, J. Phys. Chem. C125, 1601 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    D. P. Kingma and M. Welling, Auto-encoding varia- tional bayes (2022), arXiv:1312.6114 [stat]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    I. J. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, and Y. Ben- gio, Generative adversarial nets, inAdvances in Neu- ral Information Processing Systems, Vol. 27, edited by Z. Ghahramani, M. Welling, C. Cortes, N. Lawrence, and K. Weinb...

    2014

  5. [13]

    A.Radford, L.Metz,andS.Chintala,Unsupervisedrep- resentation learning with deep convolutional generative adversarial networks (2016), arXiv:1511.06434 [cs]

    2016 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Vaswani, N

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, Attention is all you need, inAdvances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, Vol. 30, edited by I. Guyon, U. V. Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan...

    2017

  7. [15]

    Rezende and S

    D. Rezende and S. Mohamed, Variational inference with normalizing flows, inProceedings of the 32nd Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 37, edited by F. Bach and D. Blei (PMLR, Lille, France, 2015) pp. 1530–1538

    2015

  8. [16]

    L. Dinh, J. Sohl-Dickstein, and S. Bengio, Density es- timation using real NVP., inICLR (Poster) (OpenRe- view.net, 2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Lipman, R

    Y. Lipman, R. T. Q. Chen, H. Ben-Hamu, M. Nickel, and M. Le, Flow matching for generative modeling (2023), arXiv:2210.02747 [cs]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Dhariwal and A

    P. Dhariwal and A. Nichol, Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis, in Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems, Vol. 34, edited by M. Ran- zato, A. Beygelzimer, Y. Dauphin, P. Liang, and J. W. Vaughan (Curran Associates, Inc., 2021) pp. 8780–8794

    2021

  11. [19]

    R. Cai, G. Yang, H. Averbuch-Elor, Z. Hao, S. Belongie, N. Snavely, and B. Hariharan, Learning Gradient Fields for Shape Generation (2020), arXiv:2008.06520 [cs]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    C. Shi, S. Luo, M. Xu, and J. Tang, Learning gradient fields for molecular conformation generation, inProceed- ings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning (PMLR, 2021) pp. 9558–9568

    2021

  13. [21]

    Sohl-Dickstein, E

    J. Sohl-Dickstein, E. Weiss, N. Maheswaranathan, and S. Ganguli, Deep unsupervised learning using nonequi- librium thermodynamics, inProceedings of the 32nd In- ternational Conference on Machine Learning, Proceed- ings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 37, edited by F. Bach a...

    2015

  14. [22]

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, Denoising diffusion prob- abilistic models, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 33 (Curran Associates, Inc.,

  15. [23]

    Song and S

    Y. Song and S. Ermon, Generative modeling by esti- mating gradients of the data distribution, inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems,Vol.32(Cur- ran Associates, Inc., 2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Y. Song, J. Sohl-Dickstein, D. P. Kingma, A. Kumar, S. Ermon, and B. Poole, Score-based generative mod- eling through stochastic differential equations (2021), arXiv:2011.13456 [cs]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Radford, K

    A. Radford, K. Narasimhan, T. Salimans, and I. Sutskever, Improving language understanding by gen- erative pre-training, Preprint (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Devlin, M.-W

    J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding (2019), arXiv:1810.04805 [cs]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Brown, B

    T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Ka- plan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sas- try, A. Askell, S. Agarwal, A. Herbert-Voss, G. Krueger, T. Henighan, R. Child, A. Ramesh, D. Ziegler, J. Wu, C. Winter, C. Hesse, M. Chen, E. Sigler, M. Litwin, S. Gray, B....

    2020

  20. [28]

    F. M. Quiroga, F. Ronchetti, L. Lanzarini, and A. Fernandez-Bariviera, Revisiting data augmentation for rotational invariance in convolutional neural net- works (arXiv, 2020) pp. 127–141, arXiv:2310.08429 [cs]

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Mazitov, F

    A. Mazitov, F. Bigi, M. Kellner, P. Pegolo, D. Tisi, G. Fraux, S. Pozdnyakov, P. Loche, and M. Ceri- otti, PET-MAD, a lightweight universal interatomic potential for advanced materials modeling (2025), arXiv:2503.14118 [cond-mat]. 20

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    A. Jain, S. P. Ong, G. Hautier, W. Chen, W. D. Richards, S. Dacek, S. Cholia, D. Gunter, D. Skinner, G. Ceder, and K. A. Persson, The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation, APL Mater.1, 011002 (2013)

    2013

  23. [31]

    Schmidt, N

    J. Schmidt, N. Hoffmann, H.-C. Wang, P. Borlido, P. J. M. A. Carriço, T. F. T. Cerqueira, S. Botti, and M. A. L. Marques, Machine-learning-assisted determi- nation of the global zero-temperature phase diagram of materials, Adv. Mater.35, 2210788 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    H.-C. Wang, J. Schmidt, M. A. L. Marques, L. Wirtz, and A. H. Romero, Symmetry-based computational search for novel binary and ternary 2D materials, 2D Mater. 10, 035007 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    A.Belsky, M.Hellenbrandt, V.L.Karen,andP.Luksch, New developments in the Inorganic Crystal Structure Database (ICSD): Accessibility in support of materials research and design, Acta Crystallogr. Sect. B Struct. Sci. 58, 10.1107/S0108768102006948 (2002)

    2002 doi

  26. [34]

    Curtarolo, W

    S. Curtarolo, W. Setyawan, S. Wang, J. Xue, K. Yang, R. H. Taylor, L. J. Nelson, G. L. W. Hart, S. San- vito, M. Buongiorno-Nardelli, N. Mingo, and O. Levy, AFLOWLIB.ORG: A distributed materials properties repository from high-throughput ab initio calculations, Comput. Mater. ...

    2012

  27. [35]

    J. E. Saal, S. Kirklin, M. Aykol, B. Meredig, and C. Wolverton, Materials design and discovery with high-throughput density functional theory: The open quantum materials database (OQMD), JOM65, 1501 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    Choudhary, K

    K. Choudhary, K. F. Garrity, A. C. E. Reid, B. De- Cost, A. J. Biacchi, A. R. Hight Walker, Z. Trautt, J. Hattrick-Simpers, A. G. Kusne, A. Centrone, A. Davydov, J. Jiang, R. Pachter, G. Cheon, E. Reed, A. Agrawal, X. Qian, V. Sharma, H. Zhuang, S. V. Kalinin, B. G. Sumpter, G...

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    Lehtola, C

    S. Lehtola, C. Steigemann, M. J. Oliveira, and M. A. Marques, Recent developments in libxc — A compre- hensive library of functionals for density functional the- ory, SoftwareX7, 1 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Generalized gradient approximation made simple, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  31. [39]

    G.KresseandJ.Furthmüller,Efficientiterativeschemes forabinitiototal-energycalculationsusingaplane-wave basis set, Phys. Rev. B54, 11169 (1996)

    1996

  32. [40]

    C. Zeni, R. Pinsler, D. Zügner, A. Fowler, M. Hor- ton, X. Fu, Z. Wang, A. Shysheya, J. Crabbé, S. Ueda, R. Sordillo, L. Sun, J. Smith, B. Nguyen, H. Schulz, S. Lewis, C.-W. Huang, Z. Lu, Y. Zhou, H. Yang, H. Hao, J. Li, C. Yang, W. Li, R. Tomioka, and T. Xie, A generative mod...

    2025

  33. [41]

    P.-P. D. Breuck, H. A. Piracha, G.-M. Rignanese, and M. A. L. Marques, A generative material transformer using Wyckoff representation (2025), arXiv:2501.16051

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Choudhary, K

    K. Choudhary, K. F. Garrity, A. C. E. Reid, B. De- Cost, A. J. Biacchi, A. R. Hight Walker, Z. Trautt, J. Hattrick-Simpers, A. G. Kusne, A. Centrone, A. Davydov, J. Jiang, R. Pachter, G. Cheon, E. Reed, A. Agrawal, X. Qian, V. Sharma, H. Zhuang, S. V. Kalinin, B. G. Sumpter, G...

    2020

  35. [43]

    C. W. Andersen, R. Armiento, E. Blokhin, G. J. Conduit, S. Dwaraknath, M. L. Evans, A. Fekete, A. Gopakumar, S. Gražulis, A. Merkys, F. Mohamed, C. Oses, G. Pizzi, G.-M. Rignanese, M. Scheidgen, L. Talirz, C. Toher, D. Winston, R. Aversa, K. Choud- hary, P. Colinet, S. Curtaro...

    2021

  36. [44]

    M. L. Evans, J. Bergsma, A. Merkys, C. W. Andersen, O. B. Andersson, D. Beltrán, E. Blokhin, T. M. Boland, R. Castañeda Balderas, K. Choudhary, A. Díaz Díaz, R. Domínguez García, H. Eckert, K. Eimre, M. E. Fuentes Montero, A. M. Krajewski, J. J. Mortensen, J. M. Nápoles Duarte...

    2024

  37. [45]

    T. Xie, X. Fu, O.-E. Ganea, R. Barzilay, and T. Jaakkola, Crystal diffusion variational au- toencoder for periodic material generation (2022), arXiv:2110.06197

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    I. E. Castelli, T. Olsen, S. Datta, D. D. Landis, S. Dahl, K. S. Thygesen, and K. W. Jacobsen, Computational screening of perovskite metal oxides for optimal solar light capture, Energy Environ. Sci.5, 5814 (2012)

    2012

  39. [47]

    I. E. Castelli, D. D. Landis, K. S. Thygesen, S. Dahl, I. Chorkendorff, T. F. Jaramillo, and K. W. Jacobsen, New cubic perovskites for one- and two-photon water splitting using the computational materials repository, Energy Environ. Sci.5, 9034 (2012)

    2012

  40. [48]

    Nouira, N

    A. Nouira, N. Sokolovska, and J.-C. Crivello, Crys- talGAN: Learning to discover crystallographic struc- tures with generative adversarial networks (2019), arXiv:1810.11203

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Hoffmann, L

    J. Hoffmann, L. Maestrati, Y. Sawada, J. Tang, J. M. Sellier, and Y. Bengio, Data-driven approach to en- coding and decoding 3-D crystal structures (2019), arXiv:1909.00949

    2019 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Sawada, K

    Y. Sawada, K. Morikawa, and M. Fujii, Study of deep generative models for inorganic chemical compositions (2019), arXiv:1910.11499. 21

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    2019 MatGAN One-Hot Elements GAN Yes Compositions [52] 2020 GANCSP Point Cloud GAN Yes All Structures [53] 2020 ICSG3D Voxel GAN Yes Cubic Alloys, Perovskites, Heusler Compounds

    2019

  44. [52]

    Y. Dan, Y. Zhao, X. Li, S. Li, M. Hu, and J. Hu, Gen- erative adversarial networks (GAN) based efficient sam- pling of chemical composition space for inverse design of inorganic materials, npj Comput. Mater.6, 1 (2020)

    2020

  45. [53]

    S. Kim, J. Noh, G. H. Gu, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and Y. Jung, Generative adversarial networks for crystal structure prediction, ACS Cent. Sci.6, 1412 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    2020 CubicGAN Point Cloud GAN Yes Cubic Structures

    2020

  47. [55]

    2021 CCDCGAN Voxel Grid VAE, GAN Yes Bi-Se Materials

    2021

  48. [56]

    2021 FTCP Reciprocal Space, Point Cloud VAE No All Structures [57] 2022 CDVAE Point Cloud, Graph VAE, Diffusion Yes All Structures [45] 2022 CCDCGAN Voxel Grid VAE, GAN Yes All Structures [58] 2022 PGCGM Wyckoff GAN Yes Ternaries [59] 2023 XYZTransformer Point Cloud LLM No All...

    2021

  49. [57]

    J. Noh, J. Kim, H. S. Stein, B. Sanchez-Lengeling, J. M. Gregoire, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and Y. Jung, Inverse design of solid-state materials via a continuous representation, Matter 1, 1370 (2019)

    2019

  50. [58]

    T. Long, Y. Zhang, N. M. Fortunato, C. Shen, M. Dai, and H. Zhang, Inverse design of crystal structures for multicomponent systems, Acta Mater.231, 117898 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    C. J. Court, B. Yildirim, A. Jain, and J. M. Cole, 3-D inorganic crystal structure generation and property pre- diction via representation learning, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 60, 4518 (2020)

    2020

  52. [60]

    Y. Zhao, M. Al-Fahdi, M. Hu, E. M. D. Siriwardane, Y. Song, A. Nasiri, and J. Hu, High-throughput discov- ery of novel cubic crystal materials using deep genera- tive neural networks, Adv. Sci.8, 2100566 (2021)

    2021

  53. [61]

    T. Long, N. M. Fortunato, I. Opahle, Y. Zhang, I. Samathrakis, C. Shen, O. Gutfleisch, and H. Zhang, Constrained crystals deep convolutional generative ad- versarial network for the inverse design of crystal struc- tures, npj Comput. Mater.7, 1 (2021)

    2021

  54. [62]

    Z. Ren, S. I. P. Tian, J. Noh, F. Oviedo, G. Xing, J. Li, Q. Liang, R. Zhu, A. G. Aberle, S. Sun, X. Wang, Y. Liu, Q. Li, S. Jayavelu, K. Hippalgaonkar, Y. Jung, and T. Buonassisi, An invertible crystallographic repre- sentation for general inverse design of inorganic crystals...

    2022

  55. [63]

    NeurIPS hierarchical GFlowNet for crystal struc- ture generation, https://neurips.cc/virtual/2023/78549 (2023)

    2023

  56. [64]

    Y. Zhao, E. M. D. Siriwardane, Z. Wu, N. Fu, M. Al- Fahdi, M. Hu, and J. Hu, Physics guided deep learning for generative design of crystal materials with symmetry constraints, npj Comput. Mater.9, 1 (2023)

    2023

  57. [65]

    Flam-Shepherd and A

    D. Flam-Shepherd and A. Aspuru-Guzik, Language models can generate molecules, materials, and protein binding sites directly in three dimensions as XYZ, CIF, and PDB files (2023), arXiv:2305.05708

    2023 arXiv

  58. [66]

    LiMnO4 with orthorhombic structure

    2023 GemsDiff Graph, Point Cloud Diffusion No All Structures [67] 2023 CGMD Point Cloud Diffusion, VAE, Flow Matching No All Structures [68] 2024 DP-CDVAE Point Cloud, Graph Diffusion No All Structures [69] 2024 CrysTens Point Cloud (Pairwise Distance) GAN, Diffusion No All St...

    2023

  59. [67]

    K. Liu, S. Gao, K. Yang, and Y. Han, PCVAE: A physics-informed neural network for determining the symmetry and geometry of crystals, in 2023 Interna- tional Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) (2023) pp. 1–8

    2023

  60. [68]

    H. Qi, X. Geng, S. Rando, I. Ohama, A. Kumar, and S. Levine, Latent conservative objective mod- els for data-driven crystal structure prediction (2023), arXiv:2310.10056

    2023 arXiv

  61. [69]

    H. Xiao, R. Li, X. Shi, Y. Chen, L. Zhu, X. Chen, and L. Wang, An invertible, invariant crystal representation for inverse design of solid-state materials using genera- tive deep learning, Nat. Commun.14, 7027 (2023)

    2023

  62. [70]

    Y. Luo, C. Liu, and S. Ji, Towards symmetry-aware gen- eration of periodic materials (2023), arXiv:2307.02707

    2023 arXiv

  63. [71]

    AI4Science, A

    M. AI4Science, A. Hernandez-Garcia, A. Duval, A. Volokhova, Y. Bengio, D. Sharma, P. L. Carrier, Y. Benabed, M. Koziarski, and V. Schmidt, Crystal- GFN: Sampling crystals with desirable properties and constraints (2023), arXiv:2310.04925

    2023

  64. [72]

    Klipfel, Y

    A. Klipfel, Y. Fregier, A. Sayede, and Z. Bouraoui, Vec- tor field oriented diffusion model for crystal material generation (2023), arXiv:2401.05402

    2023 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Novitskiy, V

    L. Novitskiy, V. Lazarev, M. Tiutiulnikov, N. Vakhrameev, R. Eremin, I. Humonen, A. Kuznetsov, D. Dimitrov, and S. Budennyy, Unleashing the power of novel conditional generative approaches for new materials discovery (2024)

    2024

  66. [74]

    Pakornchote, N

    T. Pakornchote, N. Choomphon-anomakhun, S. Ar- rerut, C. Atthapak, S. Khamkaeo, T. Chotibut, and T. Bovornratanaraks, Diffusion probabilistic models en- hance variational autoencoder for crystal structure gen- erative modeling, Sci. Rep.14, 1275 (2024)

    2024

  67. [75]

    Alverson, S

    M. Alverson, S. G. Baird, R. Murdock, E. S.-H. Ho, J. Johnson, and T. D. Sparks, Generative adversarial networks and diffusion models in material discovery, Digit. Discov.3, 62 (2024)

    2024

  68. [76]

    Gruver, A

    N. Gruver, A. Sriram, A. Madotto, A. G. Wilson, C. L. Zitnick, and Z. Ulissi, Fine-tuned language mod- els generate stable inorganic materials as text (2024), arXiv:2402.04379

    2024 arXiv

  69. [77]

    R. Jiao, W. Huang, P. Lin, J. Han, P. Chen, Y. Lu, and Y. Liu, Crystal structure prediction by joint equivariant diffusion (2024), arXiv:2309.04475

    2024 arXiv

  70. [78]

    R. Jiao, W. Huang, Y. Liu, D. Zhao, and Y. Liu, Space group constrained crystal generation (2024), arXiv:2402.03992

    2024 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Ye, H.-M

    C.-Y. Ye, H.-M. Weng, and Q.-S. Wu, Con-CDVAE: A method for the conditional generation of crystal struc- tures, Compt. Mater. Today1, 100003 (2024)

    2024

  72. [80]

    Li and N

    Z. Li and N. Birbilis, NSGAN: A non-dominant sorting optimisation-based generative adversarial design frame- work for alloy discovery, npj Comput. Mater. 10, 1 (2024)

    2024

  73. [81]

    S. Yang, K. Cho, A. Merchant, P. Abbeel, D. Schuur- mans, I. Mordatch, and E. D. Cubuk, Scalable diffusion for materials generation (2024), arXiv:2311.09235

    2024 arXiv

  74. [82]

    B. K. Miller, R. T. Q. Chen, A. Sriram, and B. M. Wood, FlowMM: Generating materials with riemannian flow matching (2024), arXiv:2406.04713

    2024 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Sinha, S

    A. Sinha, S. Jia, and V. Fung, Representation-space dif- fusion models for generating periodic materials (2024), arXiv:2408.07213

    2024 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Z. Cao, X. Luo, J. Lv, and L. Wang, Space group in- formed transformer for crystalline materials generation (2024), arXiv:2403.15734

    2024

  77. [85]

    C. Qin, J. Liu, S. Ma, J. Du, G. Jiang, and L. Zhao, In- verse design of semiconductor materials with deep gen- erative models, J. Mater. Chem. A12, 22689 (2024)

    2024

  78. [86]

    E. T. Chenebuah, M. Nganbe, and A. B. Tchagang, A deep generative modeling architecture for designing lattice-constrained perovskite materials, npj Comput. Mater. 10, 1 (2024)

    2024

  79. [87]

    S. Yang, S. Batzner, R. Gao, M. Aykol, A. L. Gaunt, B. McMorrow, D. J. Rezende, D. Schuurmans, I. Mor- datch, and E. D. Cubuk, Generative hierarchical mate- rials search (2024), arXiv:2409.06762

    2024 arXiv

  80. [88]

    R. Zhu, W. Nong, S. Yamazaki, and K. Hippalgaonkar, WyCryst: Wyckoff inorganic crystal generator frame- work, Matter7, 3469 (2024)

    2024

  81. [89]

    Q. Ding, S. Miret, and B. Liu, MatExpert: Decompos- ing materials discovery by mimicking human experts (2024), arXiv:2410.21317. 22

    2024 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Sriram, B

    A. Sriram, B. K. Miller, R. T. Q. Chen, and B. M. Wood, FlowLLM: Flow matching for material genera- tion with large language models as base distributions (2024), arXiv:2410.23405

    2024 arXiv

  83. [91]

    X. Luo, Z. Wang, P. Gao, J. Lv, Y. Wang, C. Chen, and Y. Ma, Deep learning generative model for crystal structure prediction, npj Comput. Mater.10, 1 (2024)

    2024

  84. [92]

    M.Antunes, K.T.Butler,andR

    L. M.Antunes, K.T.Butler,andR. Grau-Crespo,Crys- tal structure generation with autoregressive large lan- guage modeling, Nat. Commun.15, 10570 (2024)

    2024

  85. [93]

    Mohanty, M

    T. Mohanty, M. Mehta, H. M. Sayeed, V. Srikumar, and T. D. Sparks, CrysText: A generative ai approach for text-conditioned crystal structure generation using LLM (2024)

    2024

  86. [94]

    T. Su, B. Cao, S. Hu, M. Li, and T.-Y. Zhang, CGW- GAN: Crystal generative framework based on Wyckoff generative adversarial network, J. Mater. Inf.4, N/A (2024)

    2024

  87. [95]

    Y. Liu, C. Zhou, S. Zhang, P. Zhang, X. Lin, and S. Pan, Equivariant hypergraph diffusion for crystal structure prediction (2025), arXiv:2501.18850

    2025 arXiv

  88. [96]

    H. Wu, Y. Song, J. Gong, Z. Cao, Y. Ouyang, J. Zhang, H.Zhou, W.-Y.Ma,andJ.Liu,Aperiodicbayesianflow for material generation (2025), arXiv:2502.02016

    2025 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Z. Chen, Y. Yuan, S. Zheng, J. Guo, S. Liang, Y. Wang, and Z. Wang, Transformer-enhanced vari- ational autoencoder for crystal structure prediction (2025), arXiv:2502.09423

    2025 arXiv

  90. [98]

    X. Luo, Z. Wang, Q. Wang, J. Lv, L. Wang, Y. Wang, andY.Ma,CrystalFlow: Aflow-basedgenerativemodel for crystalline materials (2025), arXiv:2412.11693

    2025

  91. [99]

    J. Gan, P. Zhong, Y. Du, Y. Zhu, C. Duan, H. Wang, C. P. Gomes, K. A. Persson, D. Schwalbe-Koda, and W. Wang, Large language models are innate crystal structure generators (2025), arXiv:2502.20933

    2025

  92. [100]

    K. Yan, X. Li, H. Ling, K. Ashen, C. Edwards, R. Ar- róyave, M. Zitnik, H. Ji, X. Qian, X. Qian, and S. Ji, In- varianttokenizationofcrystallinematerialsforlanguage model enabled generation (2025), arXiv:2503.00152

    2025 arXiv

  93. [101]

    K. Das, S. Khastagir, P. Goyal, S.-C. Lee, S. Bhat- tacharjee, and N. Ganguly, Periodic materials gener- ation using text-guided joint diffusion model (2025), arXiv:2503.00522

    2025 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Y. Xia, P. Jin, S. Xie, L. He, C. Cao, R. Luo, G. Liu, Y. Wang, Z. Liu, Y.-J. Chen, Z. Guo, Y. Bai, P. Deng, Y. Min, Z. Lu, H. Hao, H. Yang, J. Li, C. Liu, J. Zhang, J. Zhu, R. Bi, K. Wu, W. Zhang, K. Gao, Q. Pei, Q. Wang, X. Liu, Y. Li, H. Zhu, Y. Lu, M. Ma, Z. Wang, T. Xie, ...

    2025 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Tangsongcharoen, T

    K. Tangsongcharoen, T. Pakornchote, C. Atthapak, N. Choomphon-anomakhun, A. Ektarawong, B. Alling, C.Sutton, T.Bovornratanaraks,andT.Chotibut,Crys- talGRW: Generative modeling of crystal structures with targeted properties via geodesic random walks (2025), arXiv:2501.08998

    2025 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Zhang, Y

    G. Zhang, Y. Li, R. Luo, P. Hu, Z. Zhao, L. Li, G. Liu, Z. Wang, R. Bi, K. Gao, L. Guo, Y. Xie, C. Liu, J. Zhang, T. Xie, R. Pinsler, C. Zeni, Z. Lu, Y. Xia, M. Segler, M. Riechert, L. Yuan, L. Chen, H. Liu, and T. Qin, UniGenX: Unified generation of sequence and structure wit...

    2025 arXiv

  97. [105]

    L. Wu, W. Huang, R. Jiao, J. Huang, L. Liu, Y. Zhou, H. Sun, Y. Liu, F. Sun, Y. Ren, and J. Wen, Siamese foundation models for crystal structure predic- tion (2025), arXiv:2503.10471

    2025 arXiv

  98. [106]

    S. Lu, H. Lin, L. Yao, Z. Gao, X. Ji, W. E, L. Zhang, and G. Ke, Uni-3DAR: Unified 3D generation and un- derstanding via autoregression on compressed spatial tokens (2025), arXiv:2503.16278

    2025

  99. [107]

    H. Park, A. Onwuli, and A. Walsh, Exploration of crys- tal chemical space using text-guided generative artificial intelligence, Nat. Commun.16, 4379 (2025)

    2025

  100. [108]

    D. Levy, S. S. Panigrahi, S.-O. Kaba, Q. Zhu, K. L. K. Lee, M. Galkin, S. Miret, and S. Ravan- bakhsh, SymmCD: Symmetry-preserving crystal gener- ation with diffusion models (2025), arXiv:2502.03638

    2025 arXiv

  101. [109]

    F. E. Kelvinius, O. B. Andersson, A. S. Parackal, D. Qian, R. Armiento, and F. Lindsten, WyckoffDiff – A generative diffusion model for crystal symmetry (2025), arXiv:2502.06485

    2025

  102. [110]

    Cornet, F

    F. Cornet, F. Bergamin, A. Bhowmik, J. M. G. Las- tra, J. Frellsen, and M. N. Schmidt, Kinetic langevin diffusion for crystalline materials generation (2025), arXiv:2507.03602

    2025 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Fredericks, K

    S. Fredericks, K. Parrish, D. Sayre, and Q. Zhu, PyX- tal: A Python library for crystal structure generation and symmetry analysis, Comput. Phys. Commun.261, 107810 (2021)

    2021

  104. [112]

    Chen and S

    C. Chen and S. P. Ong, A universal graph deep learning interatomic potential for the periodic table, Nat. Com- put. Sci.2, 718 (2022)

    2022

  105. [113]

    Touvron, L

    H. Touvron, L. Martin, K. Stone, P. Albert, A. Alma- hairi, Y. Babaei, N. Bashlykov, S. Batra, P. Bhargava, S. Bhosale, D. Bikel, L. Blecher, C. C. Ferrer, M. Chen, G. Cucurull, D. Esiobu, J. Fernandes, J. Fu, W. Fu, B. Fuller, C. Gao, V. Goswami, N. Goyal, A. Hartshorn, S. Ho...

    2023 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Touvron, T

    H. Touvron, T. Lavril, G. Izacard, X. Martinet, M.-A. Lachaux, T. Lacroix, B. Rozière, N. Goyal, E. Ham- bro, F. Azhar, A. Rodriguez, A. Joulin, E. Grave, and G. Lample, LLaMA: Open and efficient foundation lan- guage models (2023), arXiv:2302.13971 [cs]

    2023 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Grattafioriet al., The Llama 3 herd of models (2024), arXiv:2407.21783 [cs]

    A. Grattafioriet al., The Llama 3 herd of models (2024), arXiv:2407.21783 [cs]

    2024 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Dettmers, A

    T. Dettmers, A. Pagnoni, A. Holtzman, and L. Zettle- moyer, QLoRA: Efficient finetuning of quantized LLMs (2023), arXiv:2305.14314 [cs]

    2023 arXiv

  109. [117]

    Bengio, M

    E. Bengio, M. Jain, M. Korablyov, D. Precup, and Y. Bengio, Flow network based generative models for non-iterative diverse candidate generation (2021)

    2021

  110. [118]

    Zhang, C

    Y. Zhang, C. Hu, and B. Jiang, Embedded atom neu- ral network potentials: Efficient and accurate machine 23 learning with a physically inspired representation, J. Phys. Chem. Lett.10, 4962 (2019)

    2019

  111. [119]

    Riebesell, R

    J. Riebesell, R. E. A. Goodall, P. Benner, Y. Chiang, B. Deng, G. Ceder, M. Asta, A. A. Lee, A. Jain, and K. A. Persson, A framework to evaluate machine learn- ing crystal stability predictions, Nat. Mach. Intell.7, 836–847 (2025)

    2025

  112. [120]

    A. Loew, D. Sun, H.-C. Wang, S. Botti, and M. A. L. Marques,Universalmachinelearninginteratomicpoten- tials are ready for phonons, npj Comput. Mater. 11, 10.1038/s41524-025-01650-1 (2025)

    2025 doi

  113. [121]

    A. K. Cheetham and R. Seshadri, Artificial intelligence driving materials discovery? perspective on the arti- cle: Scalingdeeplearningformaterialsdiscovery,Chem. Mater. 36, 3490–3495 (2024)

    2024

  114. [122]

    Leeman, Y

    J. Leeman, Y. Liu, J. Stiles, S. B. Lee, P. Bhatt, L. M. Schoop, and R. G. Palgrave, Challenges in high-throughput inorganic materials prediction and au- tonomous synthesis, PRX Energy 3, 10.1103/prxen- ergy.3.011002 (2024)

    2024 doi

  115. [123]

    Juelsholt, Continued challenges in high-throughput materials predictions: Mattergen predicts com- pounds from the training dataset., ChemRxiv 10.26434/chemrxiv-2025-mkls8 (2025)

    M. Juelsholt, Continued challenges in high-throughput materials predictions: Mattergen predicts com- pounds from the training dataset., ChemRxiv 10.26434/chemrxiv-2025-mkls8 (2025)

    2025 doi

  116. [124]

    Momma and F

    K. Momma and F. Izumi, VESTA 3 for three- dimensional visualization of crystal, volumetric and morphology data, J. Appl. Crystallogr.44, 1272–1276 (2011)

    2011

  117. [125]

    Lyngby and K

    P. Lyngby and K. S. Thygesen, Data-driven discovery of 2D materials by deep generative models, npj Comput. Mater. 8, 10.1038/s41524-022-00923-3 (2022)

    2022 doi

  118. [126]

    M. N. Gjerding, A. Taghizadeh, A. Rasmussen, S. Ali, F. Bertoldo, T. Deilmann, N. R. Knøsgaard, M. Kruse, A. H. Larsen, S. Manti, T. G. Pedersen, U. Petralanda, T. Skovhus, M. K. Svendsen, J. J. Mortensen, T. Olsen, and K. S. Thygesen, Recent progress of the computa- tional 2D...

    2021

  119. [127]

    Moustafa, P

    H. Moustafa, P. M. Lyngby, J. J. Mortensen, K. S. Thygesen, and K. W. Jacobsen, Hundreds of new, stable, one-dimensional materials from a genera- tive machine learning model, Phys. Rev. Mater. 7, 10.1103/physrevmaterials.7.014007 (2023)

    2023 doi

  120. [128]

    Parida, D

    C. Parida, D. Roy, J. M. G. Lastra, and A. Bhowmik, Mining chemical space with generative models for bat- tery materials (2025)

    2025

  121. [129]

    H. Yang, C. Hu, Y. Zhou, X. Liu, Y. Shi, J. Li, G. Li, Z. Chen, S. Chen, C. Zeni, M. Horton, R. Pinsler, A. Fowler, D. Zügner, T. Xie, J. Smith, L. Sun, Q. Wang, L. Kong, C. Liu, H. Hao, and Z. Lu, Matter- Sim: A deep learning atomistic model across elements, temperatures and ...

    2024

  122. [130]

    Wines, T

    D. Wines, T. Xie, and K. Choudhary, Inverse design of next-generationsuperconductorsusingdata-drivendeep generative models, J. Phys. Chem. Lett.14, 6630–6638 (2023)

    2023

  123. [131]

    Choudhary and B

    K. Choudhary and B. DeCost, Atomistic line graph neural network for improved materials property pre- dictions, npj Comput. Mater. 7, 10.1038/s41524-021- 00650-1 (2021)

    2021 doi

  124. [132]

    M. Li, R. Okabe, M. Cheng, A. Chottratanapituk, N. T. Hung, X. Fu, B. Han, Y. Wang, W. Xie, R. Cava, T. Jaakkola, and Y. Cheng, Structural constraint in- tegration in generative model for discovery of quan- tum material candidates, Preprint 10.21203/rs.3.rs- 4765336/v1 (2024)

    2024 doi

  125. [133]

    S.Gao, Q.Huang, C.Huang, C.Li, K.Liu, B.Sa, Y.Yu, D. Xue, Z. Liu, and M. Dai, Deep generative model for the inverse design of van der waals heterostructures, Sci. Rep. 15, 10.1038/s41598-025-06432-9 (2025)

    2025 doi

  126. [134]

    Lecun, S

    Y. Lecun, S. Chopra, R. Hadsell, M. A. Ranzato, and F.J.Huang,Atutorialonenergy-basedlearning,in Pre- dicting structured data, edited by G. Bakir, T. Hofman, B. Scholkopt, A. Smola, and B. Taskar (MIT Press, 2006)

    2006

  127. [135]

    Du and I

    Y. Du and I. Mordatch, Implicit generation and mod- eling with energy based models, in Advances in Neu- ral Information Processing Systems, Vol. 32, edited by H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. dAlché- Buc, E. Fox, and R. Garnett (Curran Associates, Inc., 2019)

    2019

  128. [136]

    Bengio, M

    E. Bengio, M. Jain, M. Korablyov, D. Precup, and Y. Bengio, Flow Network based Generative Models for Non-Iterative Diverse Candidate Generation, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol.34(CurranAssociates, Inc.,2021)pp.27381–27394

    2021

  129. [137]

    Kirkpatrick, C

    S. Kirkpatrick, C. D. Gelatt, and M. P. Vecchi, Op- timization by simulated annealing, Science 220, 671 (1983)

    1983

  130. [138]

    Phys.: Condens

    P.-P.DeBreuck, M.L.Evans,andG.-M.Rignanese,Ro- bust model benchmarking and bias-imbalance in data- driven materials science: A case study on MODNet, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter33, 404002 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.