Search

Generative models have emerged as transformative tools in materials science, enabling the inverse design of novel materials with tailored properties by learning from vast datasets of structures and compositions. This review synthesizes recent advancements in generative approaches, including variational autoencoders, generative adversarial networks, diffusion models, and large language models. It highlights their conceptual capabilities for accelerating discovery while addressing scientific limits such as data scarcity, synthesizability, and interpretability. By examining applications in inorganic crystals, organic molecules, and energy materials, we delineate how these models bridge computational efficiency with experimental validation, yet face challenges in generalizability and physical fidelity. Future directions emphasize hybrid physics-informed architectures and closed-loop automation to overcome current barriers and unlock sustainable materials innovation.

The integration of multi-model and hybrid artificial intelligence (AI) systems has revolutionized materials research by enabling the efficient analysis of complex datasets, the prediction of material properties, and the optimization of design processes. This narrative review examines the architectures of these systems, including ensemble methods, multimodal data fusion, and physics-informed neural networks. It evaluates their applications in areas such as alloy design, nanomaterial synthesis, and battery management. Key trade-offs are discussed, encompassing computational efficiency versus predictive accuracy, data scarcity versus model generalizability, and interpretability versus performance in black-box models. Drawing on recent peer-reviewed literature, the review highlights how these AI approaches accelerate materials discovery while addressing challenges such as uncertainty quantification and scalability. By synthesizing current advancements, this work underscores the potential of hybrid AI to drive sustainable innovation in materials science, with implications for future interdisciplinary research.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) in materials science has revolutionized traditional approaches to material discovery, design, and application. This narrative review explores how AI models not only predict material properties but also influence scientific decision-making by providing actionable insights, optimizing experimental strategies, and enabling inverse design paradigms. Drawing on recent advancements, we examine the transition from data-driven prediction to AI-assisted decision-making, highlighting case studies in porous materials, optoelectronics, and polymeric membranes. The review addresses challenges such as data scarcity, model interpretability, and integration with experimental workflows, while proposing future directions for AI to enhance human decision-making in materials research. Ultimately, AI is positioned as a collaborative tool that augments scientific intuition, accelerating innovation in sustainable and high-performance materials.

Materials informatics, the application of data science and machine learning to materials research, has revolutionized the discovery and design of new materials. However, the field faces significant challenges in reporting failure cases, negative results, and biases, which are often silenced in the literature. This review examines documented failures in materials informatics, such as data bias, model overoptimism, and reproducibility issues, and highlights the systemic factors that lead to their underreporting. Drawing on 30 recent peer-reviewed articles, we explore themes including data quality, algorithmic limitations, and publication bias. The objectives are to assess what is typically documented, identify silenced aspects, such as unsuccessful experiments, and propose strategies for more transparent reporting. By addressing these gaps, the review aims to foster a more robust and trustworthy materials informatics ecosystem, ultimately accelerating sustainable innovation in materials science.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into materials science has revolutionized how we predict, design, and discover new materials. Among various AI techniques, ensemble methods have emerged as powerful tools that leverage the collective intelligence of multiple models to enhance prediction accuracy and reliability. This review explores the application of ensemble methods in materials AI, focusing on why individual models disagree and the scientific implications of such disagreements. By analyzing recent advancements, we highlight how ensemble approaches address uncertainties in material property prediction, phase stability, and electronic structure calculations. The review synthesizes insights from peer-reviewed literature published, emphasizing the role of ensemble methods in providing robust predictions and uncovering underlying physical principles. Ultimately, understanding model disagreement not only improves computational efficiency but also deepens our scientific understanding of material behavior.

Artificial intelligence is rapidly reshaping materials science by accelerating property prediction, synthesis planning, and materials design. Yet most AI models for materials are developed and validated under implicit stationary assumptions, while real deployments unfold in time-varying environments where materials, sensors, and processes evolve. This review synthesizes what is currently known about temporal generalization in materials AI—the capacity of models to remain reliable as data distributions and underlying mechanisms change. We distinguish two dominant degradation pathways: drift, in which input statistics or input–output relationships shift over time, and model aging, in which learned representations become obsolete as systems evolve. Drawing on evidence across biosensing and wearables, electrochemical energy storage, polymer synthesis, automated laboratories, and industrial manufacturing, we summarize how temporal failures arise, how they are detected, and why they often remain silent until performance drops become consequential. We then evaluate mitigation strategies—including domain adaptation, incremental and continual learning, active data acquisition, uncertainty-aware prediction, and human–AI feedback loops—highlighting where they succeed, where they break down, and the constraints that limit their scalability in real-world settings. Finally, we identify key gaps: limited longitudinal datasets, weak standardization of temporal evaluation protocols, underexplored multimodal temporal fusion, and insufficient emphasis on prevention rather than detection. We conclude with a forward agenda for resilient materials AI built around lifecycle monitoring, benchmarkable temporal stress tests, and hybrid frameworks that integrate mechanistic knowledge with adaptive learning to sustain reliability over time.

Machine learning (ML) has become a central driver of modern materials discovery, fundamentally reshaping how materials are designed, screened, and experimentally realized. This review examines recent advances in ML-accelerated materials discovery and emphasizes the ongoing progress in material representation and descriptor development toward fully autonomous experimental platforms. We discuss how increasingly sophisticated descriptors—ranging from composition-based features and structure-aware representations to ab initio–derived and learned embeddings—have improved predictive accuracy, data efficiency, and physical interpretability across diverse materials systems. Based on these findings, we discuss the evolution of ML frameworks for property prediction, classification, and inverse design, with particular attention to uncertainty-aware modeling, multiobjective optimization, and explainable learning strategies that bridge predictive performance with scientific insight. The study also highlights the growing role of active learning and generative models in efficiently navigating vast chemical and structural spaces, enabling data-efficient exploration and hypothesis-driven discovery. At the frontier of these developments, autonomous experimental systems integrate ML with robotics to form closed-loop workflows that iteratively design, execute, and refine experiments with minimal human intervention. Applications spanning perovskites, alloys, energy materials, and nanostructures illustrate the broad impact of these approaches in overcoming traditional trial-and-error limitations. Finally, we discuss persistent challenges associated with data scarcity, extrapolation, interpretability, and system integration, and outline future directions toward more robust, scalable, and sustainable autonomous materials discovery. Collectively, these advances represent a paradigm shift from passive data-driven prediction to intelligent, self-guided materials innovation.

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.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) into materials science has revolutionized the discovery, design, and optimization of new materials, enabling accelerated predictions of properties and behaviors previously unattainable with traditional methods. However, the “black-box” nature of many advanced AI models poses significant challenges, including a lack of transparency that hinders scientific understanding, trust, and practical adoption in materials research. This narrative review explores the concept of interpretability in materials AI, focusing on what constitutes an “explanation” and how it should be conceptually evaluated. Drawing from recent advancements in explainable AI (XAI), we delineate definitions of explanations tailored to materials informatics, emphasizing their role in bridging computational predictions with physical insights. We examine thematic aspects such as intrinsic versus post-hoc interpretability methods, the multidimensional nature of explanations (e.g., local vs. global, feature-based vs. mechanistic), and conceptual frameworks for evaluation, including criteria like fidelity, comprehensibility, robustness, and domain-specific relevance. By synthesizing the literature, we highlight how explanations can enhance materials discovery across alloy design, catalyst development, and polymer engineering, while addressing gaps in current evaluation practices. The review underscores the need for standardized conceptual metrics that go beyond quantitative benchmarks to incorporate qualitative, human-centered assessments in materials science contexts. Ultimately, this work aims to guide researchers toward developing interpretable AI systems that not only predict but also elucidate underlying material phenomena, fostering a more insightful and ethical application of AI in materials innovation.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) into materials science has accelerated the discovery and design of novel materials by enabling high-throughput prediction of properties from composition, structure, and processing parameters. However, the reliability of these predictions is frequently compromised by uncertainties stemming from limited datasets, model approximations, experimental noise, and intrinsic variability in materials systems. This narrative review synthesizes recent advances in understanding uncertainty and reliability in materials AI. It covers fundamental concepts such as aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty; methods for quantification, including Bayesian neural networks, ensembles, and Gaussian processes; inconsistencies in terminology and language across the literature; and the downstream consequences for decision-making in materials engineering, design, and deployment. Emphasis is placed on calibration of uncertainty estimates, domain-of-applicability assessment, and risk-aware applications in safety-critical contexts such as structural alloys and energy materials. By highlighting best practices and gaps, the review advocates for standardized frameworks to build trust and facilitate industrial translation of materials AI. Key challenges include data scarcity in high-performance materials and the need for physics-informed UQ to mitigate overconfidence in extrapolative predictions. This synthesis underscores the importance of robust uncertainty handling for responsible AI deployment in materials innovation.

Materials informatics has emerged as a central paradigm in contemporary materials science, leveraging machine learning and data-driven modeling to accelerate materials discovery, optimization, and deployment. Despite substantial advances in predictive accuracy, most existing approaches remain fundamentally correlational, limiting their reliability under distribution shifts, experimental interventions, and real-world deployment scenarios. This reliance on correlation constrains scientific interpretability and undermines the capacity of AI systems to function as genuine instruments of materials reasoning. Causality offers a principled framework for overcoming these limitations by explicitly modeling cause-and-effect relationships among composition, processing, structure, and properties. This narrative review synthesizes conceptual progress in integrating causal inference into materials informatics, examining foundational causal frameworks, advances in causal discovery, and hybrid causal–machine learning approaches, and emerging applications across materials domains such as nanocatalysis, ferroelectrics, and electrochemical energy storage. We critically analyze persistent challenges—including data scarcity, assumption violations, limited external validity, and computational and epistemic constraints—that currently hinder widespread adoption. Drawing exclusively on peer-reviewed literature published, the review emphasizes thematic and epistemic developments rather than algorithmic prescriptions. We argue that causality represents a structural shift in how AI systems contribute to materials science: from correlational predictors to intervention-aware, mechanism-aligned reasoning tools. By articulating future directions centered on hybrid modeling, domain-knowledge integration, and interdisciplinary collaboration, this review positions causality as a necessary foundation for robust, generalizable, and scientifically legitimate materials informatics.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into materials science, often referred to as Materials AI, has revolutionized the field by enabling accelerated discovery, design, and optimization of new materials. This narrative review explores the governance and responsible use of Materials AI, focusing on standards, transparency, and risk management. Drawing on peer-reviewed literature, we examine the evolution of AI applications in materials science, ethical considerations, and the need for robust frameworks to ensure accountable deployment. Key themes include the ethical implications of data bias and intellectual property in AI-driven materials discovery; the development of standards for model validation and interoperability; mechanisms to enhance transparency in black-box AI models; and strategies to identify and mitigate risks, such as model unreliability and societal impacts. The review highlights how autonomous experimentation systems and machine learning techniques have transformed materials research, while underscoring the importance of reflexive governance to address potential harms. Objectives include synthesizing current practices, identifying gaps in responsible AI adoption, and proposing pathways for sustainable integration. By fostering transparency and risk-aware approaches, Materials AI can contribute to societal benefits, such as advancing energy materials and sustainable manufacturing, while minimizing ethical pitfalls. This work emphasizes the interdisciplinary nature of responsible Materials AI and calls for collaboration among scientists, policymakers, and ethicists to establish trustworthy systems.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) into materials science, often referred to as materials informatics or materials AI, has accelerated the discovery, design, and optimization of advanced materials. However, materials science frequently operates in small-data and sparse-regime conditions, where datasets are limited in size (often tens to hundreds of samples), high-dimensional, imbalanced, or sparsely populated due to the high cost, time, and complexity of experimental measurements and high-fidelity simulations. This narrative review synthesizes recent advances in methods tailored to these constraints, categorizing approaches at the data-source level (e.g., literature extraction, database construction, high-throughput workflows), algorithmic level (e.g., support vector machines, Gaussian process regression, ensemble models, imbalanced learning techniques), and strategic level (e.g., active learning, transfer learning). Key assumptions underlying these methods are examined, including similarity between source and target domains for transfer learning, representativeness of initial samples and reliable uncertainty quantification in active learning, and the validity of physical priors or inductive biases in physics-informed approaches. The review also addresses inherent limits, such as risks of overfitting, poor generalization beyond the training distribution, sensitivity to data quality and noise, challenges in uncertainty calibration, and dependence on domain expertise. By highlighting successful applications in property prediction, alloy design, and perovskite optimization, this work elucidates the current capabilities and boundaries of small-data and sparse-regime learning in materials AI, guiding researchers navigating data-limited environments.

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.

Materials artificial intelligence (MAI) has revolutionized the discovery, design, and optimization of new materials by leveraging machine learning algorithms to analyze complex datasets and predict properties with high accuracy. However, the rapid proliferation of MAI tools has raised critical questions about benchmarking practices, which are essential for evaluating model performance, ensuring reproducibility, and addressing ethical concerns. This narrative review examines current benchmarking frameworks in MAI, highlighting what is effectively measured—such as predictive accuracy and computational efficiency—and what is often overlooked —such as data bias, interpretability, fairness, and ethical implications. Drawing on recent advances in frameworks such as JARVIS-Leaderboard and Matbench, the review discusses challenges in data quality, reproducibility, and the integration of explainable AI (XAI) methods. It also explores active learning strategies for optimizing materials discovery under limited data conditions and proposes directions for more inclusive and transparent benchmarking. By synthesizing insights from diverse studies, this review aims to guide future MAI research toward robust, equitable, and ethically sound practices that accelerate innovation while mitigating risks.

Autonomous and semi-autonomous laboratories represent a transformative paradigm in materials science, integrating artificial intelligence, robotics, and high-throughput experimentation to accelerate discovery and optimization processes. This review examines the conceptual foundations of these systems, including closed-loop optimization, machine learning algorithms, and modular hardware architectures. We explore their applications in areas such as alloy development, perovskite synthesis, and nanoparticle engineering, highlighting successes that have reduced discovery timelines from years to days. However, we also critically assess associated risks, including data quality issues, algorithmic biases, ethical concerns in resource allocation, and potential safety hazards from unsupervised operations. Drawing on recent advances, we propose balanced implementation strategies that maximize innovation while mitigating risks. The review underscores the need for interdisciplinary collaboration to realize the full potential of these technologies in addressing global materials challenges.

The field of materials science has witnessed a transformative shift with the advent of representation learning techniques, particularly for analyzing complex microstructures. This review synthesizes recent conceptual advances in representation learning, including deep neural networks, autoencoders, and vision transformers, applied to microstructure data for tasks such as property prediction, inverse design, and evolution modeling. We explore how these methods extract latent features from high-dimensional microstructure images, enabling efficient computation and discovery of structure-property relationships. However, interpretability remains a significant challenge, as black-box models often obscure the physical meaning of learned representations, hindering trust and scientific insight. We discuss strategies for enhancing interpretability, such as attention mechanisms, heat maps, and post-hoc explanations, drawing from recent studies in alloy microstructures and additive manufacturing. The review highlights the integration of domain knowledge to disentangle representations and address data scarcity issues. By examining case studies in metals, ceramics, and composites, we identify gaps in current approaches, including bias in learned features and limited generalizability across materials classes. Ultimately, this review aims to guide future research toward interpretable representation-learning frameworks that accelerate materials design and foster a deeper understanding of microstructural phenomena.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) in materials science has accelerated discovery and design processes, yet it introduces challenges related to failure, uncertainty, and risk. This narrative review examines how the materials AI literature addresses negative outcomes, including model uncertainties, predictive failures, and associated risks in application. Drawing on peer-reviewed studies, we explore uncertainty quantification techniques, robustness evaluations, and risk mitigation strategies. Key themes include Bayesian methods for uncertainty estimation, benchmark studies on prediction reliability, and strategies to handle data scarcity and extrapolation errors. The review highlights gaps in handling adversarial conditions and real-world failures, proposing future directions for more resilient AI frameworks in materials research. By synthesizing these insights, we aim to foster a more cautious and effective use of AI in advancing materials innovation.

This review systematically surveys conceptual approaches to scientific validation in artificial intelligence applications for materials science, drawing exclusively on 50 peer-reviewed publications from 2017 to 2022 to examine how validation is defined, operationalized, critiqued, and innovated upon within the domain. The methodology followed a targeted literature search protocol across Web of Science, Scopus, and arXiv using eight predefined search strings focused on validation, cross-validation, out-of-distribution testing, generalization, and related terms in materials AI, with strict inclusion criteria requiring explicit discussion of conceptual or epistemological aspects of validation and exclusion of purely empirical performance reports, ultimately yielding the 50 selected references after PRISMA-style screening of approximately 250 unique records. Current validation practices in materials AI literature remain anchored in conventional statistical techniques such as random train-test splits, k-fold cross-validation, leave-one-out cross-validation, and hold-out test sets, which the surveyed papers predominantly employ to quantify predictive accuracy on materials property prediction, discovery, and design tasks. Critical findings demonstrate that these practices frequently claim to establish reliable generalization while actually capturing only in-sample performance, systematically overlooking hidden data structures, distribution shifts, feature selection leakage, and the small-data regimes intrinsic to materials science, thereby producing inflated estimates of model utility that do not translate to real-world deployment. To structure the field’s understanding, the review advances a taxonomy of validation approaches organized hierarchically by what they seek to validate—predictive accuracy, robustness, generalizability, and causal structure—providing a conceptual scaffold for aligning methods with task-specific requirements. Recommendations emphasize explicit reporting, justification of method choice, and community-wide benchmarks. At the same time, open challenges persist in areas such as validating generative models for novelty and enabling trustworthy extrapolation beyond training distributions, underscoring an urgent need for epistemologically grounded practices that match the high-stakes demands of materials discovery.

This review systematically examines the treatment of absence and null results in the materials machine learning literature spanning 2017–2022, drawing exclusively on a curated set of 30 peer-reviewed publications and foundational works that address publication bias, negative findings, and reproducibility challenges in data-driven materials discovery. Through a targeted search strategy across databases such as Web of Science, Scopus, and arXiv using terms including “null result,” “negative result,” “publication bias,” “file drawer,” “failed synthesis,” and “reproducibility” combined with materials informatics keywords, the analysis reveals a persistent imbalance: while successful predictions and syntheses dominate published outputs, systematic documentation of failed predictions, unsuccessful syntheses, null correlations, and abandoned model architectures remains exceedingly rare. What is currently reported tends to be limited to negative outcomes that coincidentally reveal mechanistic insights or contradict high-profile hypotheses, whereas what is systematically unreported encompasses the vast majority of unsuccessful hyperparameter searches, negative active learning campaigns, and non-discoveries that yield no novel materials meeting target criteria. The typology of absence and null results developed here identifies six distinct categories—negative predictive outcomes, null hypothesis non-rejection, failed synthesis, non-discovery, failed replication, and abandoned architecture—each carrying unique implications for scientific progress. The consequences of this non-reporting include severe overestimation of model performance, widespread redundant experimental effort, a false sense of methodological consensus across the field, and slowed overall discovery rates as potentially informative negative signals remain invisible. Ultimately, this review offers concrete recommendations for authors, journals, and the broader community to shift incentives toward transparent reporting of absence, thereby restoring balance to the materials AI literature and accelerating reliable data-driven discovery.

Platform-based competition has fundamentally altered the nature of rivalry in digital markets, shifting emphasis from firm-level resources to network effects, multi-sided participation, and ecosystem orchestration. This integrative review synthesizes theoretical perspectives on digital marketplaces, network effects, and ecosystem strategy, drawing on 35 peer-reviewed sources published between 2003 and 2026. It examines how platform market structures differ from traditional competition, the mechanisms through which network effects generate scaling advantages and competitive lock-in, and the strategic role of governance in balancing openness with control. The analysis highlights complementor dynamics, value creation versus capture tensions, and the evolving interplay between platform leaders, users, and complementors. By classifying and comparing core theoretical streams, the review identifies persistent strategic tensions—openness versus control, scale versus governance complexity, and innovation versus appropriation—and traces the maturation of the field from early two-sided market models to contemporary ecosystem perspectives. To advance coherence, the review introduces the platform competition layered synthesis (PCLS) model, a novel integrative architecture that organizes the literature into six interconnected layers. The model reveals feedback mechanisms through which market outcomes continuously reshape platform design and competitive positioning. Implications for digital business strategy and future research directions are discussed.

This review systematically maps the scientific blind spots in the materials artificial intelligence literature by conducting a targeted search across key databases and journals to identify both what is heavily studied and what remains systematically invisible. The analysis organizes these blind spots into five interconnected categories—data, methods, evaluation, epistemic, and social—drawing on core peer-reviewed publications that collectively document the selective lens through which the field presents its progress. Key findings reveal that data blind spots center on underrepresented chemistries, structures, and operational conditions that leave critical real-world properties unmodeled; methodological blind spots arise from the dominance of correlation-driven approaches while uncertainty quantification, small-data techniques, and causal methods receive scant attention; evaluation blind spots manifest in the near-total absence of distribution-shift testing, robustness checks, and negative-result reporting that inflate perceived reliability; epistemic blind spots persist through prediction-without-explanation paradigms and the failure to articulate model boundary conditions or failure modes; and social blind spots ignore value-laden assumptions, equity considerations, and the broader societal and environmental implications of materials AI deployment. Synthesis across categories uncovers systemic patterns such as positive publication bias creating self-reinforcing feedback loops, methodological innovation consistently outpacing rigorous evaluation, data gaps mirroring decades-old research priorities, and epistemic shortcomings that propagate through every layer of the pipeline. Recommendations, therefore, target authors, reviewers, journals, and funders with concrete actions to surface these blind spots, thereby enabling a more balanced, reproducible, and societally relevant materials AI research agenda that closes the gap between published claims and real-world impact.

This review systematically examines the handling—or more often the neglect—of domain shift within the materials machine learning literature published between 2017 and 2023, drawing on a targeted search of peer-reviewed publications across specialized databases and journals to compile and analyze exactly 30 representative studies that span foundational overviews, application-focused works, and methodological explorations. Domain shift in materials science takes four distinct yet interrelated forms—temporal, compositional, experimental, and theoretical—each arising from the inherently heterogeneous nature of materials data sources that range from evolving laboratory protocols and diverse chemical families to inter-laboratory variations and discrepancies between computational approximations and experimental realities. Current practices reveal that explicit acknowledgment of domain shift remains rare, with the majority of papers proceeding under the default assumption of identical training and test distributions. At the same time, detection methods and adaptation strategies appear in fewer than one in five studies, leaving models vulnerable to silent degradation when deployed on real-world materials problems. The surveyed methods for handling domain shift include statistical detection techniques, domain-adversarial training frameworks, feature-alignment approaches, and shift-robust evaluation protocols, many of which have been proposed in adjacent machine-learning fields yet remain underutilized in materials contexts despite their direct relevance to property prediction and inverse design tasks. Collectively, these findings underscore the urgent need for standardized shift-reporting protocols, the development of materials-specific out-of-distribution benchmarks, and the integration of domain-adaptation pipelines into routine workflows, thereby elevating the reliability, generalizability, and practical utility of machine-learning models in accelerating materials discovery.

Multi-fidelity modeling has become an indispensable paradigm in artificial intelligence for materials science, offering a structured way to integrate data from simulations of varying computational expense and accuracy to accelerate the discovery and optimization of novel materials while mitigating the prohibitive costs associated with high-fidelity methods alone. This review systematically examines the conceptual foundations, underlying assumptions, and inherent trade-offs of multi-fidelity approaches through a targeted analysis of 30 peer-reviewed publications published between 2017 and 2023, identified via a rigorous literature search across databases such as Web of Science and Scopus that employed the exact search strings specified in the reference discovery protocol. The conceptual foundations rest on the hierarchical organization of fidelity levels, wherein low-fidelity models deliver rapid, broad-coverage approximations that serve as scaffolds for correction and refinement by higher-fidelity calculations through surrogate-based information transfer, thereby enabling efficient navigation of high-dimensional material design spaces. Key assumptions—such as the presence of meaningful correlation and smoothness between fidelity outputs, as well as linearity in the mapping between them—are scrutinized alongside the trade-offs they impose between computational cost, predictive accuracy, generalization capacity, and uncertainty handling. Methods ranging from Gaussian process co-kriging to neural network transfer learning are conceptually surveyed for their role in bridging fidelity gaps. At the same time, materials-specific applications in alloys, polymers, and interfaces illustrate both demonstrated successes and context-dependent limitations. Significant gaps persist in the literature, notably the infrequent validation of core assumptions and the absence of standardized benchmarks for multi-fidelity tasks, prompting recommendations for explicit assumption testing, quantitative trade-off reporting, and community-driven development of open benchmarks and reporting standards to elevate the rigor of multi-fidelity materials AI. Through this structured examination, the review underscores that while multi-fidelity frameworks hold transformative potential, their conceptual maturity requires sustained critical attention to assumptions and trade-offs if they are to support next-generation materials innovation reliably.

This review systematically examines the conceptual treatment of causality within materials informatics literature published between 2017 and 2024, drawing exclusively on a curated set of 26 studies identified through targeted and broadened searches across Web of Science, Scopus, arXiv, and specialized databases using terms such as “causal inference,” “causality materials informatics,” “structural causal model,” “directed acyclic graph,” “intervention materials design,” and “counterfactual materials prediction,” with inclusion criteria focused on relevance to materials AI while allowing broader engineering and general causal frameworks where they intersect with materials problems. The analysis reveals a pronounced dominance of correlation-based approaches in materials artificial intelligence, where predictive models achieve impressive statistical fits for structure-property relationships yet seldom progress to robust causal claims, as evidenced by the majority of surveyed works prioritizing accuracy metrics over interventional or counterfactual reasoning. Key causal concepts and frameworks, primarily drawn from Pearl’s foundational hierarchy of association, intervention, and counterfactuals as well as structural causal models and directed acyclic graphs, are introduced and contrasted with their limited adoption in the field. Causal methods that have been applied, albeit sparingly, to materials informatics—ranging from data-driven causal discovery to Bayesian causal modeling—are surveyed alongside their strengths and context-specific limitations. Persistent challenges, including the rarity of randomized interventions in experimental materials workflows and the confounding effects inherent in high-dimensional observational datasets, are highlighted as barriers that leave substantial gaps in the literature. Ultimately, this review offers targeted recommendations for authors, reviewers, and the broader community to integrate causal reasoning more explicitly, thereby moving materials informatics from correlational prediction toward actionable intervention and counterfactual understanding essential for autonomous materials design.

This review article examines the literature on scientific explanation in AI-driven materials science, focusing on the conceptual foundations and evaluative criteria that distinguish genuine scientific explanation from the predictive and interpretive outputs commonly produced by machine learning models in the field. The methodology involved a systematic search across major databases and targeted journals using predefined strings related to scientific explanation, explainable AI (XAI), and interpretability in materials contexts, resulting in the inclusion of 30 peer-reviewed publications from 2017 to 2024 that directly address the intersection of philosophical theories of explanation and practical AI applications in materials discovery and property prediction. Philosophical theories of explanation, including the deductive-nomological model of Hempel and Oppenheim, the causal-mechanical account advanced by Salmon, unificationist approaches that emphasize the integration of disparate phenomena, and pragmatic frameworks that treat explanations as context-dependent answers to why-questions, provide essential benchmarks against which current materials AI practices can be assessed. In current materials AI literature, explanation is frequently conflated with prediction or post-hoc interpretability techniques such as feature importance scores and attention visualizations, as seen in comprehensive surveys of machine learning for molecular and materials science and recent advances in solid-state applications. Yet, these approaches often remain correlational rather than mechanistically grounded. XAI methods applied to materials problems, including SHAP-based feature attribution, attention mechanisms in graph neural networks, surrogate modeling, and counterfactual generation, offer valuable local insights but fall short of meeting the standards of scientific explanation due to their inherent limitations in capturing causality, multi-scale mechanisms, and physical plausibility. Ultimately, this review articulates adapted criteria for scientific explanation tailored to materials science’s multi-scale and emergent challenges and proposes actionable recommendations to bridge the gap between XAI outputs and robust explanatory accounts, urging the community to prioritize mechanistic understanding over mere predictive accuracy to advance trustworthy and insightful AI-driven discovery.

The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into materials science has transformed workflows for property prediction, inverse design, and autonomous experimentation. Yet, it has simultaneously introduced profound challenges regarding when and how human researchers should trust AI-generated recommendations in high-stakes contexts. This review systematically examines conceptual models of trust in materials AI by synthesizing interdisciplinary insights from human factors engineering, psychology, and human-computer interaction with domain-specific literature on automated materials discovery. A targeted literature search across Web of Science, Scopus, arXiv, and the ACM Digital Library, employing search strings focused on trust in AI systems, trust calibration, trustworthiness, and human-AI interaction in scientific discovery, yielded approximately 450 initial records. After applying inclusion criteria limited to peer-reviewed English-language publications from 2017 to 2024 that addressed conceptual foundations, frameworks, or applications of trust in AI (with explicit relevance to scientific or materials contexts), 30 studies were selected for in-depth analysis following a PRISMA-style screening process. Conceptual foundations of trust are reviewed, drawing on foundational definitions that position trust as an attitude that an agent will help achieve goals under conditions of uncertainty and vulnerability, while distinguishing it from mere reliance and emphasizing the necessity of calibration for appropriate reliance levels. Existing frameworks for trust in AI are surveyed, revealing recurring components such as competence, integrity, benevolence, performance, process, and purpose, each evaluated for strengths and limitations when transposed to materials AI environments characterized by black-box models, rare events, and high economic or safety stakes. The current state of trust research in materials AI demonstrates a pronounced gap: the majority of studies prioritize predictive accuracy and scalability, with only emergent attention to trustworthiness, explainability, or human trust dynamics. Dimensions of trust tailored to materials AI—predictive competence, uncertainty calibration, transparency, robustness, benevolence, and accountability—are proposed and analyzed in relation to domain-specific challenges. This review articulates open questions surrounding trust establishment, post-failure dynamics, and stakeholder variations while offering recommendations for trust-aware design, evaluation, and reporting. By bridging broader AI trust literature with materials science realities, the work advocates for a paradigm shift from accuracy-centric evaluation toward integrated trust models that ensure safe, effective, and ethically sound human-AI collaboration in materials discovery and innovation.

This review systematically examines conceptual approaches to uncertainty communication in materials artificial intelligence, synthesizing insights from 35 peer-reviewed publications published between 2017 and 2025 that span uncertainty quantification techniques, visualization strategies, human-factors research, and domain-specific applications in computational materials science. The methodology involved targeted searches across Web of Science, Scopus, arXiv, and PubMed using strings such as “uncertainty communication” machine learning, “uncertainty visualization” materials AI, “predictive uncertainty” materials informatics, and related terms, with strict inclusion criteria limited to English-language peer-reviewed works that explicitly address the reporting, visualization, or human interpretation of uncertainty estimates, yielding a final corpus of 35 core references after PRISMA-style screening. Foundations of uncertainty communication are drawn from risk-communication literature and cognitive science, emphasizing that effective transmission of predictive uncertainty is essential for building trust and enabling sound decision-making. Yet, it remains distinct from mere quantification because users frequently misinterpret or ignore numerical confidence measures when they lack contextual framing. Current practices in materials AI reveal a persistent gap: while uncertainty quantification is increasingly present through confidence intervals or ensemble variances, explicit communication to end users—whether fellow researchers or industrial decision-makers—is rare, often limited to parenthetical standard deviations or simple error bars that fail to convey epistemic versus aleatoric components or their implications for downstream materials design. Approaches to uncertainty communication surveyed here encompass numerical, visual, verbal, interactive, and decision-focused modalities, each evaluated for strengths and limitations when applied to high-stakes materials predictions. Materials-specific challenges, including multi-scale propagation and costly experimental validation, exacerbate these issues, leading to identified gaps such as the absence of standardized reporting guidelines and limited empirical studies on user understanding; the review concludes with actionable recommendations for authors, journals, reviewers, and the broader community to elevate uncertainty communication from an afterthought to a core pillar of responsible materials AI.

The accelerating integration of artificial intelligence into materials discovery offers transformative potential for identifying novel compounds and optimizing properties at unprecedented speeds. Yet, this promise is tempered by persistent challenges in maintaining scientific rigor across computational workflows. This review employs a structured literature synthesis grounded exclusively in 35 peer-reviewed publications from 2017 to 2025, identified through targeted searches across Web of Science, Scopus, and arXiv using strings focused on scientific rigor, reproducibility in materials machine learning, reporting standards in materials informatics, methodological quality in AI-driven science, validation standards for materials AI, benchmarking in materials property prediction, replication in computational materials science, and quality assessment frameworks for AI in materials discovery, with inclusion criteria limited to studies addressing AI-assisted discovery practices and exclusion of purely experimental or non-computational works, following a PRISMA-style screening that yielded the final corpus after removing duplicates and off-topic items. Scientific rigor in this domain is understood as the systematic application of thorough, accurate, and transparent methods that ensure independent verification of AI-generated predictions while upholding honesty in reporting both positive and negative outcomes. Current practices in materials AI demonstrate growing sophistication in model development and data utilization but reveal inconsistent transparency in code and data sharing, limited replication efforts, and reliance on internal validation that falls short of broader scientific benchmarks, even as select studies begin to engage with established checklists and principles. Critical gaps emerge in the absence of tailored materials-AI rigor frameworks, the rarity of external experimental validation, and insufficient community mechanisms for enforcing completeness in reporting, which collectively risk resource misallocation and diminished confidence in AI-driven claims. Targeted recommendations for authors, reviewers, journals, and funders emphasize mandatory code and data deposition, comprehensive hyperparameter disclosure, and cultural shifts toward valuing replication and negative results to bridge these deficiencies and elevate the field’s overall integrity.

This review systematically examines conceptual models of the AI-materials scientist interface, tracing the evolution from AI as a passive computational tool to AI as an active collaborator capable of shared reasoning and autonomous contribution in materials discovery workflows. Drawing exclusively on 35 peer-reviewed publications spanning 2017–2025, the analysis integrates literature from human-computer interaction, artificial intelligence, and materials science to map the dominant metaphors, emerging conceptual shifts, existing interface models, and critical dimensions that define effective human-AI partnership. The tool metaphor, which positions AI strictly as a calculator, database, or predictor under full human control, is shown to dominate current practice yet reveals significant limitations once AI systems exhibit greater autonomy, opacity, and generative capacity. Conceptual shifts—moving from passive execution to active proposal, controlled operation to adaptive autonomy, and subordinate assistance to epistemic partnership—are documented as necessary preconditions for reframing AI as a scientific teammate. Existing models of the interface, including human-in-the-loop, human-on-the-loop, human-in-command, shared cognitive partnership, and full autonomy variants, are surveyed with concrete examples from materials research. In contrast, six core dimensions (autonomy level, communication modality, shared understanding, trust dynamics, goal alignment, and role flexibility) are articulated as the foundational axes along which collaboration quality can be assessed. Persistent gaps, such as the scarcity of empirical studies on real-world collaboration effectiveness and the absence of validated metrics beyond task performance, are identified, leading to targeted future directions that emphasize empirical teaming studies, adaptive interface design, and ethical frameworks for AI-scientist relationships. Ultimately, the review argues that materials science stands at a pivotal transition point where embracing AI as a collaborator, rather than a tool, will be essential for unlocking the next generation of accelerated, creative, and trustworthy discovery processes.