Generative Models in Inorganic Crystals Discovery and Inverse Design

Discovery of inorganic crystals remains limited by trial‐and‐error experimentation and by the cost of exploring coupled chemical, compositional and structural variables. Generative inverse design addresses this limitation by sampling candidate crystal structures from target properties rather than screening only predefined libraries. Its practical value, however, depends on three technical requirements: a representation that preserves crystallographic information, generative architectures that respect physical constraints, and evaluation protocols that distinguish valid structures from stable and synthesizable candidates. This review examines these requirements for inorganic crystal discovery. We first define the inverse‐design problem and the main generation tasks, then compare variational autoencoders, generative adversarial networks, diffusion models, flow‐based models, large language model pipelines and hybrid frameworks. The comparison shows architecture‐dependent trade‐offs. Variational autoencoders provide continuous latent spaces but often require post‐generation validation; Generative adversarial networks improve distributional sampling but remain sensitive to training instability and mode collapse; diffusion models offer strong conditional control at the cost of iterative sampling and screening; flow‐based methods provide efficient, symmetry‐aware generation; Large language model‐based approaches require standardized and symmetry‐consistent tokens; and hybrid systems assign composition, symmetry, lattice and coordinate generation to separate modules. We then discuss battery and energy materials as application testbeds and review representation choices, data resources and benchmarks. The review identifies physically constrained, multimodal and closed‐loop workflows as the clearest route from generative crystal models to experimentally actionable candidates.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Energy & environment materials
Published
2026-08-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/eem2.70482
Primary Topic
Machine Learning in Materials Science
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Generative Models in Inorganic Crystals Discovery and Inverse Design

Yan Xiong, Yan Zhao, Fei Wang, Xiaolin Liu et al.
Energy & environment materials
Machine Learning in Materials Science
article

Generative Models in Inorganic Crystals Discovery and Inverse Design

Yan Xiong, Yan Zhao, Fei Wang, Xiaolin Liu, Yu Chen, Tao Li
article en

Abstract

Discovery of inorganic crystals remains limited by trial‐and‐error experimentation and by the cost of exploring coupled chemical, compositional and structural variables. Generative inverse design addresses this limitation by sampling candidate crystal structures from target properties rather than screening only predefined libraries. Its practical value, however, depends on three technical requirements: a representation that preserves crystallographic information, generative architectures that respect physical constraints, and evaluation protocols that distinguish valid structures from stable and synthesizable candidates. This review examines these requirements for inorganic crystal discovery. We first define the inverse‐design problem and the main generation tasks, then compare variational autoencoders, generative adversarial networks, diffusion models, flow‐based models, large language model pipelines and hybrid frameworks. The comparison shows architecture‐dependent trade‐offs. Variational autoencoders provide continuous latent spaces but often require post‐generation validation; Generative adversarial networks improve distributional sampling but remain sensitive to training instability and mode collapse; diffusion models offer strong conditional control at the cost of iterative sampling and screening; flow‐based methods provide efficient, symmetry‐aware generation; Large language model‐based approaches require standardized and symmetry‐consistent tokens; and hybrid systems assign composition, symmetry, lattice and coordinate generation to separate modules. We then discuss battery and energy materials as application testbeds and review representation choices, data resources and benchmarks. The review identifies physically constrained, multimodal and closed‐loop workflows as the clearest route from generative crystal models to experimentally actionable candidates.

Energy & environment materials
Kunming University of Science and Technology (CN), Sichuan University (CN), Wuhan University (CN), Chengdu University (CN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 20%
Machine Learning in Materials Science
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.