Search

The integration of physical principles into machine learning (ML) frameworks has emerged as a transformative approach in materials science, addressing the limitations of purely data-driven models by incorporating domain knowledge to enhance predictive accuracy, generalizability, and interpretability. This narrative review explores the conceptual taxonomies of physics-integrated ML methods, their applications in materials discovery and design, and the associated challenges in data bias and ethical considerations. Drawing on recent peer-reviewed literature, we classify physics-integration strategies such as physics-informed neural networks (PINNs), hybrid models combining ML with physical simulations, and constraint-based learning, and highlight their roles in solving complex problems such as material property prediction, microstructure analysis, and phase stability. We also examine how data biases in training datasets can propagate errors and inequities in model outputs, and discuss the ethical values underpinning the use of AI in scientific research, including transparency, accountability, and societal impact. The review underscores the potential of these methods to accelerate innovation in materials science while emphasizing the need for rigorous validation and interdisciplinary collaboration. By synthesizing current advancements, this article aims to provide a foundational understanding for researchers and practitioners, paving the way for future developments in this interdisciplinary field.

Machine learning has transformed materials engineering through graph neural networks, equivariant architectures, generative models, and early autonomous laboratories. These advances enabled accurate property prediction, data-efficient force fields, and initial inverse design of inorganic crystals, supported by community databases such as the Materials Project and JARVIS. Generative frameworks now propose novel structures, while closed-loop platforms demonstrate early integration of prediction, synthesis, and robotic experimentation. However, major gaps remain: weak extrapolation beyond training distributions, inadequate handling of long-range interactions, poorly calibrated uncertainty quantification, limited synthesis prediction, underrepresentation of disordered materials, and insufficient experimental validation. Persistent unlearned lessons include benchmark biases that inflate generalization performance, poor reproducibility practices, misuse of invariant models for tensor properties, omission of random baselines in active learning, weak validity filtering in generative workflows, and near-absent failure reporting. This review critically assesses a decade of progress and shortcomings, grounded in 38 peer-reviewed publications. It highlights that hype around foundation models, generative inverse design, and autonomous labs often exceeds demonstrated impact. Realizing the field’s potential requires prioritizing extrapolation-focused architectures, mandatory experimental validation, shared failure registries, and stronger evidentiary standards to accelerate reliable discovery of functional materials.