ReviewChemical reviews2026
Reactive Machine Learning Interatomic Potentials for Chemistry and Materials Science.
Review in Chemical reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Data-Efficient and Fast Machine Learning Molecular Dynamics through Integrated Active Learning and Knowledge Distillation.Journal of chemical theory and computation · 2026Article
- How Long Is Long Enough? Extrapolation of Machine-Learning Interatomic Potentials for Oligomeric and Polymeric Systems.Journal of chemical theory and computation · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the era of artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning interatomic potentials (MLIPs) have revolutionized materials science and engineering, enabling large-scale and accurate atomistic modeling in various chemical systems. The performance of these potentials hinges on two key components: the model architecture, which defines the mathematical representation of atomic interactions, and the training data set, which supplies foundational knowledge. To scrutinize recent advances and chart the course for future development, this review presents a comprehensive analysis of reactive MLIPs, focusing on these two pillars. We first explore the evolution of model architectures, from descriptor-based models to state-of-the-art equivariant graph neural networks, critically assessing the essential requisites for achieving both physical accuracy and computational efficiency. Concurrently, we examine the sophisticated data acquisition strategies required to capture the complexities of chemical reactions, with a particular focus on uncertainty-driven active learning for sampling high-energy transition states and reaction pathways. Finally, beyond reviewing current methodologies, we provide an outlook on domain-specific challenges and discuss emerging opportunities in next-generation technologies, such as generative AI and cognitive autonomous agents. We believe this review will serve as a valuable guideline for practitioners in selecting and constructing MLIPs tailored for the study of chemical reactivity.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.