Search

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.

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.

Generative models in materials science have emerged as powerful tools for proposing novel atomic structures, compositions, and functional properties. Yet, their scientific evaluation remains conceptually underdeveloped and fragmented across statistical proxies that rarely capture the true relevance to materials. This review systematically examines the conceptual foundations of scientific evaluation for generative materials AI by targeting 30 peer-reviewed publications spanning 2017–2026 and employing a PRISMA-guided methodology focused on evaluation metrics, physical plausibility, chemical validity, synthesizability, novelty, and utility. The evaluation dimensions extend far beyond conventional statistical metrics such as validity percentages or reconstruction error to encompass six interlocking scientific criteria—chemical validity, structural plausibility, property accuracy, synthesizability, novelty, and utility—that together define whether a generated material constitutes a genuine scientific artifact rather than a computational curiosity. Current evaluation practices, as documented across the literature, remain heavily anchored in validity scores, uniqueness counts, and nearest-neighbor novelty checks, with approximately 68% of studies relying primarily on chemical-validity filters and only 22% incorporating any form of synthesizability assessment, revealing a persistent gap between computational convenience and experimental realism. Critical analysis reveals that these practices are necessary yet profoundly insufficient, frequently conflating statistical fidelity with scientific value and overlooking failure modes such as physically unstable geometries or literature-overlooked duplicates. Emerging frameworks, including multi-objective physics-informed scoring, retrospective validation against subsequent experimental discoveries, and downstream task benchmarking, offer promising pathways toward more rigorous standards. Yet significant gaps persist in the absence of community-wide benchmarks, reliable predictors of synthesizability, and domain-specific utility metrics. This review, therefore, offers actionable recommendations for authors, reviewers, and the broader community to elevate generative materials AI from pattern generation to verifiable scientific discovery, ensuring that evaluation protocols align with the epistemological demands of materials science itself.

Artificial intelligence is rapidly moving beyond its early role as a pattern-recognition and predictive-modelling tool in materials science. What began as an acceleration strategy for screening known datasets is now becoming a broader transformation of how materials hypotheses are generated, tested, and refined. The central problem is that this transformation is often described in fragments: predictive models in one literature, generative design in another, physics-informed learning in another, and autonomous laboratories in yet another. A unified conceptual synthesis is needed to explain how these streams collectively move AI from passive assistant to active scientific collaborator. This integrative review traces the evolution of AI in materials science from 2017 to 2026. It frames the field through the idea of the AI co-scientist: an intelligent system that can recognise patterns, propose candidates, incorporate physical constraints, select experiments, and learn from feedback. The review integrates 31 peer-reviewed articles spanning materials informatics, machine learning, generative AI, inverse design, physics-informed modelling, active learning, autonomous experimentation, and self-driving laboratories. It does not present new empirical data, meta-analysis, or bibliometric mapping. The synthesis identifies four major evolutionary stages: pattern recognition, generative design, physics-integrated AI, and autonomous experimentation. These stages are not isolated phases but mutually reinforcing capabilities that increasingly connect computation, synthesis, characterisation, and human judgement. The review concludes that AI is becoming a genuine partner in materials discovery, but this transition depends on trustworthy data infrastructure, interpretable models, robust experimental integration, and new norms for human–AI collaboration. The co-scientist paradigm offers a forward-looking framework for understanding how materials science may be reorganised around closed-loop intelligence.

This review examines the literature on ethical frameworks for artificial intelligence (AI) applied to materials science and discovery, synthesizing insights from 31 peer-reviewed publications spanning 2017 to 2026 to trace the evolution from high-level principles to practical implementation. The methodology involved a systematic search across Web of Science, Scopus, arXiv, and PhilPapers using targeted strings such as “ethics AI materials science,” “responsible AI materials discovery,” “ethical framework AI science,” “dual use materials AI,” “AI ethics principles materials,” “governance AI materials research,” “justice AI materials discovery,” and “value alignment materials AI,” with inclusion limited to peer-reviewed works directly addressing ethical dimensions in scientific or materials contexts, yielding 31 core references after PRISMA-style screening of over 500 initial results. Major ethical principles for AI—beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, justice, explicability, and sustainability—are surveyed as foundational guides originally developed in broader AI ethics literature but rarely adapted to materials-specific applications. The current state of materials AI literature reveals a predominant focus on technical acceleration of discovery, with explicit ethical engagement appearing in fewer than 20% of surveyed works and often limited to passing mentions rather than systematic analysis. Materials-specific ethical challenges, including dual-use risks in weaponizable materials, environmental harms from resource-intensive AI-driven synthesis, equity gaps in global access to discoveries, labor displacement through automation, intellectual property ambiguities, and intergenerational justice concerns, remain largely unaddressed despite the field’s rapid growth. Significant gaps persist in operationalizing principles, developing governance mechanisms, and providing domain-tailored guidance, underscoring an urgent need for actionable recommendations to bridge the principles-practices divide and foster responsible materials AI innovation that prioritizes societal benefit, sustainability, and justice.

This review examines the problem of scientific consensus formation in AI-driven materials science by systematically analyzing conceptual approaches from philosophy and sociology of science alongside empirical developments in computational materials research, drawing exclusively on 31 peer-reviewed publications from 2017–2026 identified through targeted searches in Web of Science, Scopus, arXiv, and PhilPapers using terms such as “scientific consensus” AI materials, “consensus formation” machine learning science, “disagreement” materials AI, “benchmark” consensus materials informatics, “epistemic consensus” AI science, “paradigm” materials AI, “scientific disagreement” computational science, and “consensus mechanism” AI research, with inclusion criteria limited to papers addressing epistemology, disagreement, uncertainty, benchmarks, or paradigm dynamics in data-driven disciplines and exclusion of purely technical performance reports. Consensus concepts are traced from logical-positivist agreement on theories through Kuhnian paradigms and Mertonian social processes to Bayesian convergence and pragmatic problem-solving necessities, revealing how each framework illuminates different facets of knowledge coordination in materials science. AI’s impact on consensus formation operates through six distinct mechanisms—accelerated hypothesis validation, model disagreement, benchmark-driven focal points, opacity-induced dissent, data-driven convergence, and authority shifts—both facilitating rapid agreement on material properties and simultaneously generating new forms of epistemic fragmentation. These dynamics create profound tensions and paradoxes, including the trade-off between speed and deliberation, convergence versus diversity, predictive agreement versus explanatory understanding, local versus global consensus, and human versus AI authority, while exposing critical gaps such as the absence of a dedicated theory for AI-mediated consensus, the scarcity of empirical studies tracking real-time consensus processes in materials AI communities, and unresolved questions about managing productive disagreement. Recommendations are offered for researchers, journals, and the broader community to distinguish model agreement from scientific consensus, institutionalize empirical consensus studies, preserve productive dissent, and develop governance protocols that harness AI’s epistemic power without sacrificing critical scrutiny, thereby guiding the field toward more reflexive and robust knowledge production in the age of AI-augmented materials discovery.

The rapid evolution of computational and data-driven materials engineering has introduced closed-loop systems that integrate simulation, machine learning, and experimental validation to accelerate materials discovery. However, these infrastructures raise critical questions about accountability, encompassing liability distribution across computational workflows, ownership of validation processes, attribution of errors in predictive models, and broader regulatory implications for deployment in high-stakes applications. This review synthesizes recent advancements in uncertainty quantification, error evaluation, and automated frameworks within computational materials ecosystems, highlighting how they underpin accountability mechanisms. We examine liability in multi-stage pipelines where uncertainties propagate from atomic simulations to macroscopic predictions, as seen in neural network potentials and Bayesian active learning approaches. Validation ownership is dissected through ensemble methods and adversarial techniques that assign responsibility for model reliability. Error attribution is explored via metrics and information-theoretic tools that trace discrepancies back to data sources or algorithmic biases. Regulatory considerations are framed around numerical quality controls and convergence protocols essential for certifying computational outputs in sectors like additive manufacturing and thermoelectric materials. By integrating cross-study insights, we propose an original interpretive structure for accountability infrastructures, emphasizing closed-loop feedback as a means to mitigate risks. This synthesis underscores the need for standardized protocols to ensure trustworthy integration of AI-driven tools in materials engineering, paving the way for ethical and reliable innovation.

The rapid evolution of computational and data-driven materials engineering has ushered in autonomous discovery systems that integrate machine learning, high-throughput simulations, and robotic experimentation to accelerate materials innovation. Central to these systems are decision authority frameworks, which define how authority is delegated between human operators and artificial intelligence agents, ensuring safe, ethical, and efficient operations. This review synthesizes recent literature on delegation models, human override mechanisms, responsibility assignment, and policy encoding within materials informatics ecosystems. We examine how these frameworks operate in closed-loop discovery pipelines, where active learning and uncertainty quantification guide iterative experimentation. Key areas include representation learning via graph neural networks for materials property prediction, multimodal dataset integration for simulation-experiment synergy, and inverse design strategies that balance exploration and exploitation. By analyzing delegation in autonomous laboratories, we highlight the role of human-in-the-loop paradigms in mitigating risks such as algorithmic bias or experimental failures. The review underscores the need for robust policy encodings that embed ethical constraints and regulatory compliance into AI-driven workflows. Drawing from high-impact studies, we provide an integrative perspective on how these frameworks enhance reliability in materials discovery, paving the way for scalable, trustworthy autonomous systems in computational materials science.

The rapid evolution of computational and data-driven materials engineering has ushered in an era where self-driving laboratories (SDLs) promise to transform materials discovery by integrating automation, machine learning, and high-throughput experimentation into cohesive governance architectures. These architectures orchestrate the interplay between data generation, model training, and decision-making processes to enable closed-loop optimization in materials design. This review synthesizes recent advancements in SDL governance, focusing on how computational workflows—encompassing materials informatics, graph neural networks, representation learning, and uncertainty quantification—facilitate autonomous systems in addressing complex materials challenges. We examine the foundational elements of data-driven ecosystems, including multimodal datasets and simulation-experiment integration, and explore active learning strategies that balance exploration and exploitation in inverse design paradigms. Key governance components, such as orchestration platforms like ChemOS 2.0 and Bayesian active learning frameworks, are analyzed for their role in accelerating discovery cycles. By integrating perspectives from high-impact studies, we highlight how these architectures mitigate inefficiencies in traditional trial-and-error approaches, enabling scalable, reproducible materials innovation. The review positions SDL governance as a critical infrastructure for future materials engineering, emphasizing systems-level integration over isolated techniques. Ultimately, it underscores the potential of these architectures to democratize access to advanced materials development while identifying pathways for enhanced interoperability and robustness in computational ecosystems.

The convergence of machine learning, high-throughput computation, and autonomous experimentation has transformed materials discovery into an AI-directed process capable of closed-loop, data-driven innovation at unprecedented speed. This narrative review examines the computational and data-driven materials engineering ecosystem, with a specific focus on the governance, regulatory, and institutional oversight frameworks required to steward these capabilities responsibly. We synthesize developments in materials informatics, representation learning, graph neural networks, active learning, uncertainty quantification, and simulation–experiment integration, showing how these tools have enabled autonomous laboratories and inverse design. Particular attention is given to community-driven calls for standards, explainability, and scientific responsibility that have emerged alongside the technology. By integrating technical literature with explicit discussions of data governance, reproducibility, and ethical deployment, we articulate the need for structured institutional oversight models that span standards bodies, regulatory readiness, and multi-stakeholder governance regimes. These models must operate at the infrastructure level—embedding accountability into discovery pipelines rather than retrofitting them. The review positions institutional oversight not as a constraint on innovation but as an essential enabler that ensures AI-directed materials engineering delivers safe, equitable, and societally beneficial outcomes.