Search

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) into materials science has fundamentally transformed how material properties are predicted, analyzed, and understood. While early data-driven approaches emphasized predictive accuracy and high-throughput screening, recent advances are increasingly focusing on interpretability and explainability, enabling AI models to contribute to mechanistic scientific insight rather than functioning as opaque black boxes. This study examines the evolution of interpretable AI in materials science and highlights the transition from property prediction to explanation-driven understanding of structure–property relationships. In this thesis, we investigate the progress in machine learning frameworks that operate with limited or implicit structural information, alongside the growing use of explainable AI (XAI) techniques to uncover physically meaningful descriptors, atomic-scale interactions, and microstructural drivers of material behavior. Methods such as graph-based learning, attention mechanisms, feature attribution, and uncertainty-aware modeling are discussed for their ability to improve model reliability, expose data bias, and guide hypothesis generation. Representative applications across alloys, perovskites, organic semiconductors, and ferroelectric materials demonstrate how interpretable models have revealed governing mechanisms spanning atomic, mesoscopic, and macroscopic length scales. Beyond individual case studies, this study examines persistent challenges in interpretable materials AI, including data quality, generalizability, explanation stability, and computational overhead. We argue that interpretability is not merely an auxiliary feature but a prerequisite for trustworthy and scientifically helpful AI in materials research. By synthesizing recent methodological and application-driven advances, this review positions interpretable AI as a critical enabler of mechanism-oriented discovery, experimental validation, and theory development, ultimately advancing AI from a predictive accelerator to an integral partner in scientific understanding.

In the rapidly expanding domain of artificial intelligence applied to materials science, the relentless pursuit of optimal predictive performance has emerged as the central organizing principle. Yet, this very imperative creates a profound paradox: models that achieve near-perfect accuracy on benchmark tasks frequently erode the scientific understanding they purport to support. When optimization dominates, systems become hyper-specialized predictors that deliver engineering-grade outputs while concealing the mechanistic pathways essential to genuine discovery. Optimization in materials AI unquestionably achieves impressive feats such as accelerated property prediction, efficient virtual screening of vast chemical spaces, and practical utility in guiding experimental synthesis; however, these gains come at the expense of interpretability, robustness, generalizability, and the capacity to generate novel hypotheses about underlying physical laws. This critical critique isolates four interlocking problems inherent to over-optimization: prediction without explanation, in which flawless forecasts provide no causal or structural insight; fragile optimality, whereby peak performance on training distributions collapses under even modest shifts in material conditions; the exploration-exploitation trap, which locks research into incremental refinement of known chemistries at the cost of venturing into truly novel territories; and optimization as epistemic closure, where the declaration of state-of-the-art accuracy prematurely terminates further inquiry. The consequences for materials science are far-reaching, manifesting as stagnant theoretical progress despite benchmark improvements, brittle knowledge bases ill-suited to real-world deployment, systematic neglect of high-potential but uncertain discoveries, and the misallocation of computational and human resources toward marginal accuracy gains rather than foundational insight. Alternative frameworks that deliberately balance predictive power with explanatory depth—ranging from explicit Pareto optimization of accuracy against interpretability to explanation-forcing model designs and satisficing strategies—are therefore not optional enhancements but necessary correctives if artificial intelligence is to fulfill its promise as a genuine partner in scientific understanding rather than a mere engineering tool. By reframing the goals of materials AI away from singular optimality. Toward epistemic multiplicity, the field can escape the curse of optimality and reclaim the generative interplay between prediction and comprehension that has historically driven materials innovation.