Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40949927›Full record

ReviewDigital discovery2025

Uncertainty in the era of machine learning for atomistic modeling.

Federico Grasselli, Sanggyu Chong, Venkat Kapil, Silvia Bonfanti, Kevin Rossi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Digital discovery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Uncertainty Quantification forChemical reviews · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Federico GrasselliDipartimento di Scienze Fisiche, Informatiche e Matematiche, Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia 41125 Modena Italy federico.grasselli@unimore.it.
Sanggyu ChongLaboratory of Computational Science and Modeling, Institute of Materials, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne 1015 Lausanne Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6948-1602
Venkat KapilYusuf Hamied Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge Cambridge CB2 1EW UK.
Silvia BonfantiCenter for Complexity and Biosystems, Department of Physics "Aldo Pontremoli", University of Milan Via Celoria 16 20133 Milano Italy.
Kevin RossiDepartment of Materials Science and Engineering, Delft University of Technology Delft 2628 CD The Netherlands k.r.rossi@tudelft.nl.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8428-5127

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The widespread adoption of machine learning surrogate models has significantly improved the scale and complexity of systems and processes that can be explored accurately and efficiently using atomistic modeling. However, the inherently data-driven nature of machine learning models introduces uncertainties that must be quantified, understood, and effectively managed to ensure reliable predictions and conclusions. Building upon these premises, in this perspective, we first overview state-of-the-art uncertainty estimation methods, from Bayesian frameworks to ensembling techniques, and discuss their application in atomistic modeling. We then examine the interplay between model accuracy, uncertainty, training dataset composition, data acquisition strategies, model transferability, and robustness. In doing so, we synthesize insights from the existing literature and highlight areas of ongoing debate.

Identifiers

PMID40949927
PMCPMC12423928

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.