The study benchmarks 12 deep generative crystal structure prediction models against the template-based TCSP 2.0 on 180 test structures, finding that template retrieval achieves the highest top‑1 success (68.3%). Most generative predictions overlap with template substitutions, and removing entire stoichiometric prototype families from training reduces accuracy by 50‑78%, indicating strong prototype dependence. Only a small subset of predictions remain after such removal, suggesting limited genuine de‑novo capability.
By Lai Wei, Rongzhi Dong, Ying Feng, Madeline Miklos, Jianjun Hu
arXiv:2606. 29082v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Would experience designing faster GPU kernels also help close in on a long-standing open mathematical conjecture?
By Young-Jun Lee, Seungone Kim, Minki Kang, Alistair Cheong Liang Chuen, Zerui Chen, Seungho Han, Taehee Jung, Dongyeop Kang
arXiv:2608. 06582v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Flow-based generative models can efficiently produce candidate structures for crystal structure prediction (CSP), but their pretrained objectives do not directly optimize downstream target recovery.
By Kaixiang Su, Hongfei Xue, Qiang Zhu
uFlowCSP is a MeanFlow-based crystal structure prediction model that learns the average probability‑flow velocity, enabling it to generate complete crystal structures in one to five network evaluations. It achieves inference speeds 5×–58× faster than diffusion and flow‑matching methods while matching or surpassing their performance, with a chemistry‑ and symmetry‑aware Transformer that uses canonical atom ordering and per‑token chemistry embeddings. On the MP‑20 benchmark, uFlowCSP attains comparable or higher accuracy with far fewer evaluations and significantly lower wall‑clock time, demonstrating improved accuracy per network evaluation.
By Sourin Dey, Dipannoy Das Gupta, Lai Wei, Sadman Sadeed Omee, Jianjun Hu
arXiv:2607. 04108v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models are increasingly used as evolutionary engines for scientific discovery: generate candidates, select winners, feed them back as parents, and repeat.
By Pan Li
arXiv:2602. 00424v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Continuous-time generative models for crystalline materials enable inverse materials design by learning to predict stable crystal structures, but incorporating explicit target properties into the generative process remains challenging.
By Philipp Hoellmer, Stefano Martiniani
arXiv:2606. 28578v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Closed-loop materials discovery iterates between proposing candidate structures and evaluating their properties, and property evaluation dominates the cost.
By Sk Md Ahnaf Akif Alvi, Jan Janssen, Danny Perez, Douglas Allaire, Raymundo Arroyave
arXiv:2606. 18388v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: RL post-training strategies are dataset-dependent and reveal a recurring empirical pattern: capacity parameters accumulate monotonically across stages, while regularization parameters predominantly oscillate in response to shifting training dynamics.
By Haoyang Fang, Wei Zhu, Boran Han, Alex Zhang, Zhenyu Pan, Shuo Yang, Shuai Zhang, Jiading Gai, Peng Tang, Cuixiong Hu, Xuan Zhu, Huzefa Rangwala, George Karypis, Bernie Wang
arXiv:2606. 15197v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Optimization modeling is inherently hierarchical, requiring a precise sequence of symbolic commitments.
By Jiajun Li, Yu Ding, Shisi Guan, Ran Hou, Wanyuan Wang
arXiv:2608. 06448v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Recovering a periodic 3D crystal structure from sparse, unindexed electron diffraction (ED) observations is a challenging generative inverse problem.
By Germain Poloudenny, Ya\"el Fr\'egier, Arnaud Demorti\`ere
arXiv:2606. 07712v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Progress in AI-driven crystal materials science has so far been carried by narrow architectures purpose-built for individual tasks -- graph neural networks for property prediction, diffusion and flow-matching models for crystal generation -- each excelling within its niche yet unable to act as a shared backbone across the full spectrum of materials problems.
By Zhan'ao Yao, Boxuan Zhang, Jingyuan Shu, Xiaoyu Wu, Rongyan Wang, Linjing Li, Dajun Zeng, Yudong Yao, Tingwei Chen, Youwei Wang, Xiaolin Zhao, Jiahui Shi, Jianjun Liu
arXiv:2606. 20858v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The temporal structure of reward composition in reinforcement learning (RL) is typically hand-designed and held fixed throughout training, leaving the progression of motivational priorities largely unexplored.
By Alan Nadelsticher Ruvalcaba