Emergent Capabilities in Materials Foundation Models: A New Paradigm for Scientific Discovery

Abstract

Foundation models are catalyzing a transformative shift in materials science and drug development by demonstrating emergent capabilities such as cross-domain generalization and sophisticated reasoning. Trained on massive, multimodal datasets, these AI systems are moving beyond traditional, task-specific models to enable scalable, general-purpose scientific discovery. This article explores the foundational principles of these models, their diverse methodological applications from property prediction to molecular generation, the critical challenges of reliability and data quality, and the evolving frameworks for their validation. By synthesizing the latest research, we provide a comprehensive guide for researchers and scientists looking to understand and leverage these powerful tools to accelerate innovation in biomedicine and materials design.

What Are Materials Foundation Models? Defining the Core Concepts and Emergent Behaviors

Foundation models represent a fundamental paradigm shift in artificial intelligence and machine learning. Coined by researchers at Stanford University, the term describes models that are "trained on broad data (generally using self-supervision at scale) that can be adapted (e.g., fine-tuned) to a wide range of downstream tasks" [1] [2]. Unlike traditional machine learning models, which are typically trained on smaller datasets to accomplish specific tasks, foundation models employ transfer learning to apply knowledge gained from one task to another, making them suitable for expansive domains including computer vision, natural language processing, and speech recognition [1]. This adaptability stems from their training on vast, immense datasets, allowing them to serve as the foundational building blocks for crafting more specialized applications [3] [1].

In the specific context of materials science, this paradigm is catalyzing a transformative shift. Foundation models enable scalable, general-purpose, and multimodal AI systems for scientific discovery, offering cross-domain generalization and exhibiting emergent capabilities that are particularly well-suited to research challenges spanning diverse data types and scales [4]. Their versatility provides a powerful framework for tackling complex tasks in materials discovery, from property prediction and synthesis planning to molecular generation [5].

Core Architectural Principles

The Transformer Backbone

The capabilities of modern foundation models are deeply rooted in their underlying architectures. A type of deep learning model known as the transformer has been an architecture of choice, particularly for natural language processing [1]. The transformer architecture relies on several key components:

• Encoders: Transform input sequences into numerical representations called embeddings that capture the semantics and position of tokens in the input sequence [1].
• Self-Attention Mechanism: Allows transformers to "focus their attention" on the most important tokens in the input sequence, regardless of their position, enabling the model to capture long-range dependencies and contextual relationships [1].
• Decoders: Utilize the self-attention mechanism and the encoders' embeddings to generate the most statistically probable output sequence [1].

This architecture has been successfully adapted for scientific domains. For materials discovery, models often employ either encoder-only architectures (broadly based on the BERT architecture) for understanding and representing input data, or decoder-only architectures for generating new outputs by predicting one token at a time [5]. The original transformer architecture encompassed both encoding and decoding tasks, but these components are now frequently decoupled, with each serving distinct purposes in scientific workflows [5].

Multimodal and Specialized Architectures

Beyond basic transformer designs, more sophisticated architectures have emerged to handle the complex nature of scientific data. Diffusion models represent another important architecture, particularly for generative tasks [3] [1]. These neural networks gradually "diffuse" training data with random noise, then learn to reverse that diffusion process to reconstruct the original data [1]. In materials science, diffusion models have been used for generating realistic material structures with specific geometric patterns [6].

For handling diverse data representations, mixture of experts (MoE) architectures have gained popularity. An MoE uses a router to selectively activate a subset of the model's weights for different tasks, efficiently leveraging complementary strengths of various data modalities [7]. IBM researchers successfully implemented this approach, fusing together SMILES, SELFIES, and molecular graph-based models in a "multi-view" MoE architecture that outperforms models built on just one modality [7].

The Engine of Scale: Self-Supervised Learning

Principles of Self-Supervised Pre-training

Foundation models typically employ self-supervised learning, where models learn inherent correlations in unlabeled data without human-provided labels [1]. This approach represents a fundamental departure from previous ML architectures that used supervised or unsupervised learning [3]. In self-supervised learning, the model creates its own labels from the input data, allowing it to learn rich, general-purpose representations from massive datasets that would be impractical to label manually [3].

The self-supervised training process involves learning by predicting masked or corrupted parts of the input data. For example, BERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers), one of the first foundation models, was trained using a masked language modeling objective where it learned to predict missing words in a sequence by analyzing the context from both directions [3] [1]. This approach allows the model to develop a deep, bidirectional understanding of relationships within the data.

Self-Supervised Learning in Materials Science

In materials informatics, self-supervised methods have been developed to utilize unlabeled structure data, allowing models to learn essential data representations using automatically generated pseudo-labels [8]. These approaches are particularly valuable because obtaining large volumes of high-quality labeled data through simulations or experiments is costly and time-consuming [8] [9].

One innovative SSL method for materials involves manipulating atomic structures to create learning signals. For instance, researchers have developed techniques that shuffle atoms within a structure, ensuring that the processed structure contains only elements present in the original structure [8]. This method prevents the model from relying on easily detectable replacement artifacts and forces it to learn meaningful representations of atomic arrangements and their relationships. In validation studies, this approach confirmed an accuracy increase during fine-tuning of up to 0.366 eV compared to state-of-the-art methods and achieved approximately 12% improvement in energy prediction accuracy in semi-supervised learning compared to using only supervised training [8].

Table 1: Self-Supervised Learning Methods in Materials Science

Method	Mechanism	Application	Performance
Element Shuffling [8]	Rearranges atoms within original elemental constraints	Material property prediction	0.366 eV improvement in accuracy; ~12% improvement in energy prediction
ConvNeXtV2 for SEM [9]	Knowledge extraction from raw, unlabeled images	Particle segmentation in SEM images	34% reduction in relative error compared to established SSL methods
Multi-View MoE [7]	Fuses multiple molecular representations	Molecular property prediction	Outperformed single-modality models on MoleculeNet benchmark tasks

Foundation Models in Materials Discovery: Emergent Capabilities

Property Prediction and Inverse Design

Foundation models are revolutionizing property prediction in materials science by creating powerful predictive capabilities based on transferrable core components [5]. This enables a truly data-driven approach to inverse design, where desired properties are specified and the model identifies structures that exhibit those properties [5]. Current models are predominantly trained on 2D representations of molecules such as SMILES or SELFIES, though this approach sometimes omits critical 3D conformational information [5]. An exception exists for inorganic solids, such as crystals, where property prediction models usually leverage 3D structures through graph-based or primitive cell feature representations [5].

The application of foundation models extends to predicting exotic quantum properties. For instance, MIT researchers developed SCIGEN (Structural Constraint Integration in Generative model), a tool that enables diffusion models to adhere to user-defined geometric constraints during generation [6]. This approach allows the creation of materials with specific atomic structures more likely to give rise to exotic quantum properties, such as the Kagome and Lieb lattices that can support materials useful for quantum computing [6]. When applied to generate materials with Archimedean lattices, the approach produced over 10 million candidate materials, with subsequent simulations revealing magnetism in 41% of the sampled structures [6].

Molecular Generation and Synthesis Planning

Foundation models demonstrate remarkable capabilities in generating novel molecular structures and planning their synthesis. Using decoder-only architectures, these models can generate new chemical entities by predicting one token at a time based on given input and previously generated tokens [5]. This capability is particularly valuable for discovering new, more sustainable materials with applications in chip fabrication, clean energy, and consumer packaging [7].

IBM's foundation models for materials (FM4M) exemplify this capability, using multiple molecular representations including SMILES, SELFIES, and molecular graphs [7]. These models, pre-trained on massive datasets (91 million SMILES, 1 billion SELFIES, and 1.4 million molecular graphs), can be fine-tuned for specific applications such as searching for replacements for toxic PFAS "forever" chemicals or better battery materials [7]. The multi-modal approach helps overcome limitations of individual representations—while SMILES strings can cause AI models to generate invalid molecules due to lost 3D structural information, molecular graphs capture spatial arrangements of atoms and bonds at higher computational cost [7].

Data Extraction and Knowledge Management

A significant application of foundation models in materials science involves extracting and structuring knowledge from the vast scientific literature. Advanced data-extraction models must efficiently parse and collect materials information from diverse sources including scientific reports, patents, and presentations [5]. Traditional approaches primarily focused on text, but in materials science, significant information is embedded in tables, images, and molecular structures [5].

Modern extraction pipelines leverage both traditional named entity recognition (NER) approaches and multimodal models that integrate textual and visual information [5]. Tools like Plot2Spectra demonstrate how specialized algorithms can extract data points from spectroscopy plots in scientific literature, enabling large-scale analysis of material properties [5]. Similarly, DePlot converts visual representations such as plots and charts into structured tabular data for reasoning by large language models [5]. These capabilities are crucial for constructing comprehensive datasets that accurately reflect the complexities of materials science, where minute details can significantly influence material properties—a phenomenon known as an "activity cliff" [5].

Table 2: Quantitative Evolution of Representative Foundation Models

Model	Release Year	Parameters	Training Data Size	Key Capabilities
BERT [3]	2018	340 million	16 GB dataset	Question answering, sentence prediction, text translation
GPT-3 [3]	2022	175 billion	500-billion-word Common Crawl	Text generation, translation, summarization, code generation
GPT-4 [3]	2023	170 trillion	45 GB training dataset	Passed Uniform Bar Examination with score of 297 (76%)
Claude 3 Opus [3]	2024	Not specified	Not specified	Complex task automation, research acceleration across diverse use cases
BLOOM [3]	2022	176 billion	46 natural languages + 13 programming languages	Multilingual text creation, code generation in multiple languages

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Implementing Self-Supervised Learning for Materials

The implementation of self-supervised learning for materials property prediction follows a structured protocol. Based on the element shuffling method described in [8], the workflow can be summarized as follows:

• Data Preparation: Collect unlabeled material structures, typically represented as graph structures where nodes represent atoms and edges represent bonds.
• Preprocessing: Apply element shuffling within structures, ensuring only elements originally present in the structure are rearranged. This prevents the model from learning through easily detectable replacement artifacts.
• Self-Supervised Pre-training: Train Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) using the automatically generated pseudo-labels from the shuffling process. The model learns to identify essential patterns and relationships in the data without human-provided labels.
• Fine-tuning: Adapt the pre-trained model to specific property prediction tasks using smaller labeled datasets. This transfer learning approach typically results in faster convergence and improved performance compared to training from scratch.
• Validation: Evaluate model performance on standardized benchmarks for material property prediction, comparing against state-of-the-art supervised and self-supervised methods.

This methodology addresses the fundamental challenge of limited labeled data in materials science by leveraging abundant unlabeled structure data, significantly reducing dependency on costly simulations or experiments for data generation [8].

Constrained Generation of Quantum Materials

The SCIGEN protocol for generating materials with specific geometric constraints demonstrates how foundation models can be steered toward creating materials with targeted properties [6]:

• Constraint Definition: Specify desired geometric patterns (e.g., Archimedean lattices, Kagome lattices) known to give rise to target quantum properties.
• Model Integration: Implement SCIGEN as a computer code that ensures diffusion models adhere to user-defined constraints at each iterative generation step.
• Candidate Generation: Apply the constrained model to generate millions of material candidates conforming to the specified geometric patterns.
• Stability Screening: Filter generated candidates for stability using established computational methods, typically reducing the candidate pool by approximately 90%.
• Property Simulation: Perform detailed simulations (e.g., using supercomputing resources) on a smaller sample of stable candidates to understand atomic-level behaviors and identify promising leads.
• Experimental Validation: Synthesize top candidate materials and characterize their properties experimentally to validate model predictions.

In the case of SCIGEN application to DiffCSP, this protocol resulted in the synthesis of two previously undiscovered compounds (TiPdBi and TiPbSb) with magnetic properties that largely aligned with the AI model's predictions [6].

SCIGEN Workflow for Constrained Materials Generation [6]

The development and application of foundation models in materials research requires specialized computational resources and datasets. The table below details essential components of the research toolkit for working with materials foundation models.

Table 3: Essential Research Toolkit for Materials Foundation Models

Resource Category	Specific Examples	Function/Role	Access Details
Molecular Databases [5] [7]	PubChem, ZINC, ChEMBL	Provide structured information on materials for model pre-training	Publicly available; contains billions of molecular structures
Model Architectures [3] [1]	Transformer, Diffusion Models, GNNs	Base architectures for building foundation models	Open-source implementations available through platforms like Hugging Face
Material Representations [7]	SMILES, SELFIES, Molecular Graphs	Different modalities for representing molecular structures	Each has strengths and limitations for specific tasks
Benchmarking Tools [7]	MoleculeNet	Standardized evaluation of model performance on chemistry tasks	Created at Stanford University
Pre-trained Models [3] [7]	IBM FM4M, DiffCSP, BERT	Starting points for transfer learning and fine-tuning	Available on GitHub and Hugging Face; some require API access
Experimental Validation [6]	Synthesis Labs, Characterization Tools	Validate AI-generated material candidates in physical experiments	Specialized facilities like Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Implementation Frameworks and Platforms

Several platforms and frameworks have emerged as critical infrastructure for developing and deploying foundation models in materials science:

• Hugging Face: Acts as a community hub where developers can share and explore models and datasets, offering public access to nearly 200,000 models and 30,000 datasets [3].
• Amazon Bedrock: A fully managed service that makes foundation models from Amazon and leading AI startups available through an API, providing various FMs for different use cases [3].
• IBM Foundation Models for Materials (FM4M): A family of open-source models specifically designed for materials discovery, available on GitHub and Hugging Face, which have been downloaded over 100,000 times [7].

These platforms significantly lower the barrier to entry for researchers looking to leverage foundation models, providing pre-trained models that can be adapted to specific research needs with relatively small amounts of domain-specific data.

Future Directions and Challenges

Despite their impressive capabilities, foundation models face several significant challenges in materials science applications. Infrastructure requirements remain substantial, as building a foundation model from scratch is expensive and requires enormous resources, with training potentially taking months [3]. Issues of bias persist, as models can learn from human bias present in training data, which then trickles down to the outputs of fine-tuned models [3] [1]. Data quality and reliability present ongoing concerns, as source documents often contain noisy, incomplete, or inconsistent information that can propagate errors into downstream models and analyses [5].

The future development of foundation models for materials discovery will likely focus on several key areas. Multimodal fusion techniques that effectively combine information from diverse data representations (text, graphs, images, spectral data) will enhance model comprehensiveness and accuracy [7]. Constrained generation approaches, like SCIGEN, will enable more targeted discovery of materials with specific properties [6]. Continual learning frameworks will allow models to adapt to new data and knowledge without catastrophic forgetting, essential for keeping pace with rapid scientific advancement [4]. Finally, improved interpretability and trustworthiness mechanisms will be crucial for fostering adoption within the scientific community, particularly for high-stakes applications like drug discovery and energy materials [4].

As foundation models continue to evolve, they hold the potential to dramatically accelerate the discovery and development of novel materials, addressing critical challenges in sustainability, healthcare, and technology. By serving as powerful general-purpose assistants to materials scientists, these models can multiply human creativity and intuition, potentially reducing the decade-long timelines traditionally associated with materials discovery and deployment.

The field of materials science is undergoing a paradigm shift driven by the advent of foundation models. These models, trained on broad data at scale using self-supervision, demonstrate remarkable emergent capabilities that extend beyond their original training objectives [5]. This whitepaper examines how these unexpected capabilities—particularly cross-domain generalization and creative molecular design—are accelerating discovery in materials science and drug development. Foundation models, including large language models (LLMs) and specialized scientific variants, represent a new class of artificial intelligence systems characterized by their adaptability to a wide range of downstream tasks through fine-tuning [5]. Their emergence signals a transition from manually engineered descriptors and task-specific models to automated, general-purpose systems that capture complex, multiscale relationships in molecular and material data [4] [10].

The significance of these developments lies in their potential to address fundamental challenges in materials discovery. Traditional screening methods face intractable limitations when confronted with the estimated 10^60 theoretically feasible compounds [11]. Foundation models offer a pathway to navigate this vast chemical space through inverse design capabilities, wherein desired properties dictate the discovery of novel molecular structures [11]. Furthermore, the convergence of emerging experimental and computational strategies is redefining our ability to characterize and model complex systems that exhibit structural correlations across multiple length and time scales [12]. This review synthesizes current advances in materials foundation models, with particular emphasis on their emergent properties and applications to cross-domain generalization and creative molecular design for research scientists and drug development professionals.

Cross-Domain Generalization in Materials Foundation Models

Cross-domain generalization refers to the ability of foundation models to apply knowledge learned from one domain to perform effectively in distinct but related domains. This emergent capability stems from pre-training on diverse, multimodal datasets that capture complementary aspects of materials systems [4]. The architectural flexibility of transformer-based models enables this knowledge transfer through shared representations that capture fundamental chemical and physical principles across domains.

Foundational Mechanisms and Architectural Enablers

The cross-domain capabilities of materials foundation models arise from several key architectural and training innovations. Self-supervised learning (SSL) on large unlabeled datasets enables models to learn transferable representations without expensive manual annotation [10]. Techniques like masked token prediction for molecular sequences [5] and contrastive learning for 3D structures [10] allow models to develop a fundamental understanding of chemical space. The transformer architecture itself, with its attention mechanisms, provides the computational foundation for modeling complex relationships in molecular data [5].

Multimodal fusion represents another critical enabler, integrating diverse data types including molecular graphs, SMILES strings, quantum mechanical properties, and biological activities [10]. Early advancements such as MolFusion's multi-modal fusion and SMICLR's integration of structural and sequential data demonstrate how hybrid frameworks generate more comprehensive molecular representations [10]. Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) explicitly encode relationships between atoms in a molecule, capturing both structural and dynamic properties [10]. Equivariant GNNs extend this further by incorporating geometric constraints, enabling physically consistent predictions across 3D molecular conformations [10].

Emergent Cross-Domain Applications

Materials foundation models exhibit emergent generalization across several key dimensions, from representation learning to practical materials discovery applications, as summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Emergent Cross-Domain Generalization Capabilities in Materials Foundation Models

Generalization Dimension	Mechanism	Application Example	Key Benefit
2D to 3D Molecular Understanding	3D-aware pre-training (e.g., 3D Infomax) [10]	Enhanced property prediction using geometric information [10]	Captures conformational behavior and spatial interactions
Small Molecules to Polymers	Specialized graph representations for molecular ensembles [10]	Property prediction for polymeric materials	Handles complex macromolecular structures
Organic to Inorganic Systems	Unified representation of crystals and molecules [4]	Discovery of novel crystal structures (e.g., GNoME) [10]	Identifies stable materials across chemical compositions
Single-Modal to Multi-Modal Learning	Cross-modal fusion architectures [10]	Joint modeling of structural, sequential, and quantum data [10]	Enables comprehensive molecular characterization

The 3D Infomax approach exemplifies geometric generalization, leveraging 3D molecular geometries to enhance GNN performance through pre-training on existing 3D molecular datasets [10]. This method improves prediction accuracy and demonstrates how latent embeddings can bridge informational gaps between 2D and 3D molecular representations [10]. For macromolecules like polymers, where representing a single well-defined structure is challenging, specialized graph frameworks treat polymers as ensembles of similar molecules, accurately capturing critical features and outperforming traditional cheminformatics approaches .

The GNoME (Graph Networks for Materials Exploration) system from DeepMind demonstrates exceptional cross-composition generalization, identifying 2.2 million new crystal structures including 380,000 stable materials with potential applications in superconductors and next-generation batteries [10]. This achievement highlights how foundation models can generalize across vastly different material classes, from organic molecules to inorganic solids.

Creative Molecular Design as an Emergent Capability

Creative molecular design represents a paradigm shift from traditional screening-based discovery to generative approaches that invent novel molecular structures with desired properties. This emergent capability stems from the generative capacities of foundation models, particularly decoder-only architectures that can produce novel molecular structures token-by-token [5].

Generative Architectures for Molecular Invention

Several architectural approaches have demonstrated emergent creative capabilities in molecular design, each with distinct strengths and applications, as summarized in Table 2.

Table 2: Generative Architectures for Creative Molecular Design

Architecture	Generative Mechanism	Strengths	Common Applications
Variational Autoencoders (VAEs)	Learning continuous latent spaces for molecular structures [13]	Smooth latent space navigation, probabilistic sampling [13]	Molecular optimization, exploration of chemical spaces [13]
Graph Neural Networks (GNNs)	Message passing between atom nodes with graph-based decoding [10]	Explicit encoding of molecular topology [10]	Property-driven generation, 3D-aware design [10]
Diffusion Models	Iterative denoising process from random noise to structured output [11]	High-quality sample generation, flexibility [11]	High-fidelity molecular generation, conformation design [11]
Transformer-based LLMs	Token-by-token generation of molecular strings (SMILES, SELFIES) [5] [11]	Leverages scale, transfer learning from language [5]	High-throughput generation, transfer from chemical literature [5]

Variational Autoencoders (VAEs) learn continuous representations of molecules that facilitate exploration of novel chemical spaces [13]. Gómez-Bombarelli et al. demonstrated how VAEs enable both interpolation between known molecules and generation of entirely new structures by sampling from the learned latent distribution [13]. This approach supports the invention of potential drugs and the optimization of molecules for enhanced efficacy and reduced toxicity [13].

Transformer architectures adapted for molecular generation treat simplified molecular-input line-entry system (SMILES) or self-referencing embedded strings (SELFIES) representations as sequences, enabling them to apply next-token prediction capabilities learned from natural language corpora to the generation of novel molecular structures [5] [11]. This approach benefits from the massive scale of transformer training and the transfer of architectural innovations from the language domain [5].

Inverse Design: From Properties to Molecules

The most significant emergent capability in creative molecular design is inverse design, where models generate molecular structures conditioned on desired properties [11]. This represents a fundamental inversion of the traditional discovery pipeline—rather than screening existing libraries for molecules with target properties, models invent novel structures that satisfy specified criteria.

Foundation models enable inverse design through their conditional generation capabilities. For example, models can be fine-tuned to generate molecules with high binding affinity for specific protein targets, optimal solubility for formulation, or specific electronic properties for materials applications [11]. The alignment process, analogous to the human preference alignment used in conversational AI, conditions the model's exploration of chemical space to prioritize regions with desired characteristics [5].

Emergent creative capabilities also extend to related tasks in the molecular design pipeline, including retrosynthetic planning [11] [10], reaction design [11], and synthesis execution [11]. These capabilities demonstrate how foundation models develop a form of "chemical intuition" that transcends pattern recognition to enable genuine invention.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Robust experimental protocols are essential for validating the emergent capabilities of materials foundation models. This section outlines key methodologies for evaluating cross-domain generalization and creative molecular design.

Protocol for Cross-Domain Generalization Assessment

Objective: To quantitatively evaluate a foundation model's ability to transfer knowledge across disparate domains (e.g., from organic molecules to inorganic crystals).

Materials and Data Preparation:

• Source Domain Dataset: Curate a large-scale dataset (e.g., 10^6+ samples) from domains with abundant data, such as organic molecules from ZINC [12] or ChEMBL [14].
• Target Domain Dataset: Prepare smaller evaluation datasets (e.g., 10^3-10^4 samples) from the target domain, such as inorganic crystals from materials databases [4].
• Preprocessing: Implement consistent featurization across domains using standardized molecular representations (SMILES, SELFIES, graphs) [10].

Procedure:

• Pre-training Phase: Pre-train model on source domain data using self-supervised objectives (masked token prediction, contrastive learning) [10].
• Transfer Learning Phase: Fine-tune the pre-trained model on limited target domain data (e.g., 1%, 10%, 100% of target training set) [5] [10].
• Evaluation: Compare fine-tuned model against:
  • Baseline model trained only on target domain data
  • Traditional machine learning models with hand-crafted features
• Metrics: Report performance on target domain tasks using standardized metrics (MAE, RMSE, ROC-AUC) and analyze data efficiency of transfer [10].

Validation: Perform ablation studies to identify which model components enable cross-domain transfer and analyze learned representations for domain-invariant features [10].

Protocol for Generative Molecular Design Validation

Objective: To validate the novelty, diversity, and property satisfaction of molecules generated by foundation models.

Materials:

• Reference Dataset: Established molecular database (e.g., ChEMBL [14], ZINC [12]) for novelty assessment.
• Property Prediction Models: Pre-trained models for evaluating generated molecules against target properties.
• Chemical Space Visualization Tools: Dimensionality reduction methods (t-SNE, UMAP) for diversity analysis.

Procedure:

• Conditional Generation: Generate molecules conditioned on target properties using the foundation model's sampling mechanisms [11].
• Initial Filtering: Apply chemical validity checks (e.g., valency constraints, synthetic accessibility scoring) [11].
• Property Validation: Evaluate generated molecules against target properties using independent prediction models or physical simulations [11].
• Novelty Assessment: Compute Tanimoto similarity or maximum common substructure against reference database to ensure novelty [11].
• Diversity Analysis: Measure structural diversity of generated set using molecular fingerprints and diversity metrics [11].

Validation:

• Multi-property Optimization: Assess ability to satisfy multiple property constraints simultaneously [11].
• Synthetic Accessibility: Evaluate synthetic tractability using retrosynthesis tools or expert assessment [11].
• Experimental Validation: For top candidates, proceed to synthesis and experimental characterization where feasible [11].

The following workflow diagram illustrates the key stages in the generative molecular design and validation process:

Diagram 1: Generative Molecular Design and Validation Workflow. The iterative refinement loop enables continuous improvement of generated molecules against target criteria.

Successful implementation of materials foundation models requires specialized data resources, software tools, and computational frameworks. This section details essential components of the modern computational scientist's toolkit.

Table 3: Essential Research Resources for Materials Foundation Models

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Databases	Function	Key Features
Chemical Databases	PubChem [5], ZINC [12], ChEMBL [14]	Provide structured molecular data for training and benchmarking	Millions of compounds with associated properties and activities [5]
Multimodal Data Extraction Tools	Named Entity Recognition (NER) systems , Vision Transformers	Extract molecular information from scientific literature and patents	Process both text and images to construct comprehensive datasets [5]
Representation Formats	SMILES , SELFIES , Molecular Graphs [10]	Encode molecular structures for model input	Balance expressiveness with computational efficiency [10]
Specialized Modeling Architectures	Graph Neural Networks [10], Transformers [5], Diffusion Models [11]	Implement foundation model capabilities for molecular data	Capture structural, spatial, and chemical relationships [10]
Validation and Analysis Tools	Property Prediction Models [5], Chemical Space Visualization [11]	Evaluate generated molecules and model performance	Ensure chemical validity, novelty, and property satisfaction [11]

The integration of multimodal data extraction tools is particularly important for addressing data scarcity in specialized domains. Advanced systems combine traditional named entity recognition with computer vision approaches using Vision Transformers and Graph Neural Networks to extract molecular information from both text and images in scientific documents [5]. These systems can identify molecular structures from images and associate them with properties described in the text, significantly expanding the available training data beyond structured databases [5].

Specialized tooling has also emerged for specific data types. For spectroscopy data, Plot2Spectra demonstrates how specialized algorithms can extract data points from plots in scientific literature, enabling large-scale analysis of material properties . Similarly, DePlot converts visual representations such as charts into structured tabular data for reasoning by large language models . These tools highlight how multimodal models can function as orchestrators, leveraging external tools for domain-specific tasks to enhance overall efficiency and accuracy [5].

The emergence of unexpected capabilities in materials foundation models—particularly cross-domain generalization and creative molecular design—represents a fundamental shift in computational materials science and drug discovery. These emergent properties stem from the unique architectural features of foundation models, including their scale, self-supervised training methodologies, and multimodal integration capabilities.

As detailed in this whitepaper, cross-domain generalization enables knowledge transfer from data-rich domains to specialized applications, addressing critical data scarcity challenges [5] [10]. Creative molecular design capabilities, especially inverse design, transform the discovery process from screening to invention, dramatically accelerating the exploration of chemical space [11]. The experimental protocols and research resources outlined provide a framework for validating and extending these emergent capabilities.

Looking forward, several challenges remain, including improving model interpretability, addressing data imbalance across domains, ensuring robust validation of generated molecules, and developing more efficient training methodologies [4]. However, the rapid pace of innovation in this field suggests that foundation models will continue to develop unexpected capabilities that further accelerate materials discovery and drug development. The convergence of larger datasets, improved architectures, and better training paradigms points toward a future where foundation models serve as collaborative partners in scientific discovery, capable of generating hypotheses and designing novel materials with minimal human intervention.

The exploration of foundation models has expanded beyond natural language processing into specialized scientific domains, most notably materials science and drug discovery. The architectural choice between encoder-only, decoder-only, and encoder-decoder designs represents a fundamental decision that directly influences a model's capabilities in understanding, generation, and efficiency. These architectural building blocks form the computational substrate upon which emergent capabilities in materials foundation models are being built, enabling researchers to accelerate the discovery of novel compounds, predict molecular properties with unprecedented accuracy, and optimize pharmaceutical candidates. As the field evolves beyond general-purpose language models, understanding these architectural nuances becomes critical for researchers aiming to leverage artificial intelligence for scientific discovery, particularly in domains requiring integration of diverse data modalities from molecular structures to experimental measurements.

Core Architectural Paradigms

Encoder-Only Architectures

Encoder-only models are specifically designed for comprehensive understanding and representation learning from input data. These architectures process input sequences through bidirectional attention mechanisms that allow each token to attend to all other tokens in the sequence, enabling rich contextual representations. The training typically employs objectives like masked language modeling, where random tokens are obscured and the model must predict them based on surrounding context [15].

In materials science applications, encoder-only architectures excel at learning meaningful molecular embeddings that can be leveraged for various predictive modeling tasks. These models transform input structures—whether represented as SMILES strings, molecular graphs, or other formats—into dense vector representations that capture essential chemical properties and relationships. These embeddings subsequently serve as inputs for classification tasks such as toxicity prediction or regression tasks like solubility estimation [15] [16].

Decoder-Only Architectures

Decoder-only architectures have gained prominence as the dominant paradigm for generative tasks, characterized by their unidirectional attention mechanism that prevents tokens from attending to future positions. This autoregressive property makes them ideally suited for sequence generation tasks, as they produce output tokens iteratively, with each new token conditioned on all previously generated tokens [15] [17].

The dominance of decoder-only models in general-purpose large language models (LLMs) stems from their impressive scaling properties and emergent capabilities. For materials research, these models facilitate generative molecular design, where novel compounds with desired properties can be systematically proposed through sampling from the learned chemical space. The training objective is fundamentally predictive: given a sequence of tokens, the model learns to predict the next token in the sequence, effectively modeling the probability distribution of molecular structures [18] [15].

Encoder-Decoder Architectures

Encoder-decoder architectures represent a hybrid approach that separates input processing from output generation. The encoder comprehensively processes the input sequence through bidirectional attention, creating a rich contextual representation. The decoder then utilizes this representation through cross-attention mechanisms while maintaining autoregressive properties for generation [15].

This architectural paradigm is particularly powerful for tasks requiring complex mapping between substantially different input and output modalities or structures—exactly the scenario often encountered in scientific applications. For instance, when generating molecular structures from textual descriptions, or when predicting material properties from spectral data, the separation of encoding and decoding responsibilities allows the model to develop specialized capabilities for both understanding and generation [18] [17].

Table: Comparative Analysis of Core Architectural Paradigms

Architectural Feature	Encoder-Only	Decoder-Only	Encoder-Decoder
Primary Attention Mechanism	Bidirectional	Causal (Unidirectional)	Bidirectional (Encoder) + Causal (Decoder)
Training Objectives	Masked Language Modeling, Next Sentence Prediction	Causal Language Modeling	Prefix Language Modeling, Span Corruption
Key Strengths	Rich contextual representations, Understanding tasks	Text generation, Scalability, Emergent abilities	Sequence-to-sequence mapping, Multimodal tasks
Common Applications in Materials Science	Molecular property prediction, Classification	Generative molecular design, Question answering	Molecular translation, Multimodal fusion, Text-to-molecule generation
Inference Efficiency	High for understanding tasks	Efficient autoregressive generation	Potential bottlenecks between components

Architectural Comparisons and Performance Analysis

Recent comprehensive studies have revisited the encoder-decoder versus decoder-only comparison from a scaling perspective, revealing nuanced trade-offs. When enhanced with modern architectural components like rotary positional embeddings and pretrained with prefix language modeling objectives, encoder-decoder models (RedLLM) demonstrate competitive scaling properties compared to decoder-only models (DecLLM) across model sizes ranging from ~150M to ~8B parameters [18].

The research indicates that while decoder-only models generally dominate the compute-optimal frontier during pretraining, encoder-decoder architectures achieve comparable and sometimes superior performance on various downstream tasks after instruction tuning, while offering substantially better inference efficiency. This efficiency advantage stems from the encoder's ability to process the input once, with the decoder then generating outputs based on the encoded representations [18].

Encoder-decoder models particularly excel in scenarios where inputs and outputs are structurally dissimilar—a common occurrence in scientific applications where molecular structures must be generated from textual descriptions or vice versa. The bidirectional attention mechanism in the encoder provides comprehensive understanding of the input, while the autoregressive decoder enables controlled generation [17].

Table: Performance Comparison Across Model Architectures

Evaluation Metric	Decoder-Only (DecLLM)	Encoder-Decoder (RedLLM)	Context and Notes
Pretraining Compute Optimality	Dominant	Competitive	DecLLM almost dominates compute-optimal frontier [18]
Zero-Shot Performance (Pretraining)	Strong	Weaker	RedLLM performs poorly at zero-shot before instruction tuning [18]
Few-Shot Performance (Pretraining)	Strong scaling	Moderate scaling	RedLLM lags behind DecLLM in few-shot before instruction tuning [18]
Post-Instruction Tuning	Strong performance	Comparable or better	RedLLM achieves comparable/better results with better inference efficiency [18]
Inference Efficiency	Moderate	Substantially better	RedLLM enjoys significantly better inference efficiency after tuning [18]
Context Length Extrapolation	Good	Promising	Both show strong capabilities, with RedLLM demonstrating promising results [18]

Multimodal Fusion in Scientific Foundation Models

Multimodal Representation of Molecular Data

The complexity of molecular structures necessitates multiple representation modalities, each capturing different aspects of chemical information. SMILES and SELFIES strings offer sequential representations that encode molecular topology as text strings, enabling the application of natural language processing techniques. Molecular graphs represent atoms as nodes and bonds as edges, explicitly capturing structural connectivity. Experimental data modalities include spectral information (NMR, mass spectrometry) and physical property measurements, which provide empirical constraints [7] [16].

No single modality comprehensively captures all relevant aspects of molecular behavior. For instance, SMILES strings are computationally efficient but lose stereochemical information, while molecular graphs preserve connectivity but require specialized architectures like graph neural networks. The integration of these complementary representations through multimodal learning has demonstrated significant improvements in prediction accuracy and robustness across diverse molecular tasks [7].

Multimodal Fusion Strategies

Multimodal fusion strategies can be categorized based on the stage at which integration occurs, each with distinct advantages and limitations for scientific applications:

• Early Fusion: Integration occurs at the input level by combining raw or minimally processed features from different modalities. This approach is straightforward to implement but may struggle with reconciling heterogeneous data structures and scales [16].

• Intermediate Fusion: Modalities are processed independently initially, with integration occurring in intermediate layers through attention mechanisms or shared representations. This approach has demonstrated particular effectiveness in molecular property prediction, achieving superior performance in multiple benchmarks by allowing cross-modal interactions during feature extraction [16].

• Late Fusion: Each modality is processed through separate models, with predictions integrated at the final stage. This approach maximizes individual modality performance and is robust to missing modalities but may fail to capture complex cross-modal interactions [16].

The MMFRL (Multimodal Fusion with Relational Learning) framework exemplifies advanced intermediate fusion, employing relational learning to capture complex similarities between molecular instances across different representation spaces. This approach has demonstrated state-of-the-art performance on MoleculeNet benchmarks, highlighting the power of sophisticated fusion strategies for molecular property prediction [16].

Diagram: Multimodal Fusion Strategies for Molecular Representations. This illustrates how different molecular data modalities (SMILES strings, molecular graphs, experimental data, and 3D structures) can be integrated through early, intermediate, and late fusion approaches to support various applications in materials science and drug discovery.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Benchmarking Architectural Performance

Comprehensive architectural comparisons require standardized evaluation protocols across diverse tasks. Recent studies have employed rigorous methodologies where both encoder-decoder (RedLLM) and decoder-only (DecLLM) models are pretrained on large-scale datasets like RedPajama V1 (approximately 1.6T tokens) followed by instruction tuning on FLAN. Performance is then evaluated across 13 downstream tasks using zero-shot and few-shot paradigms to assess generalization capabilities [18].

For materials-specific benchmarking, the MoleculeNet suite provides a standardized framework encompassing diverse prediction tasks including toxicity (Tox21), side effects (SIDER), physical properties (ESOL, Lipophilicity), and quantum mechanical properties. These benchmarks enable systematic comparison of architectural approaches across classification and regression tasks relevant to drug discovery and materials science [16].

Experimental protocols must carefully control for parameter count and computational budget when comparing architectures. For encoder-decoder models, parameter counts typically combine both encoder and decoder components, while decoder-only models concentrate parameters in a single stack. Fair comparison may involve matching total parameter counts rather than layer counts, with encoder-decoder models often having approximately twice the parameters of comparable decoder-only models [18].

Multimodal Pretraining and Fusion Evaluation

The effectiveness of multimodal fusion approaches is typically evaluated through ablation studies comparing different fusion strategies (early, intermediate, late) against unimodal baselines. The MMFRL framework, for instance, employs a multi-stage training process where models are first pretrained on individual modalities, then fused through relational learning objectives that capture complex similarities between molecular instances [16].

Critical to multimodal evaluation is assessing performance in scenarios with missing modalities during inference—a common real-world constraint. Advanced frameworks address this by enabling downstream models to benefit from auxiliary modalities even when these are absent during inference through cross-modal knowledge distillation and relational learning [16].

Table: Research Reagent Solutions for Materials Foundation Models

Reagent / Resource	Type	Primary Function	Example Sources/Implementations
MoleculeNet Benchmarks	Dataset Suite	Standardized evaluation across molecular tasks	ESOL, Lipophilicity, Tox21, SIDER, etc. [16]
SMILES/SELFIES-TED	Foundation Model	Molecular representation learning from text-based representations	IBM FM4M project [7]
MHG-GED	Foundation Model	Graph-based molecular representation learning	IBM FM4M project [7]
MMFRL Framework	Methodology	Multimodal fusion with relational learning	Intermediate fusion for property prediction [16]
TabPFN	Foundation Model	Tabular data prediction for small datasets	Bayesian prediction for scientific data [19]
Multi-view Mixture of Experts	Architecture	Fusing complementary molecular representations	IBM FM4M project [7]

Emerging Architectures and Future Directions

Beyond Transformer Architectures

The quadratic complexity of standard attention mechanisms has motivated research into sub-quadratic architectures that may offer scalability advantages for long-sequence molecular data. State space models (SSMs) like Mamba provide an alternative to attention with linear complexity in sequence length, potentially enabling more efficient processing of long molecular sequences or high-resolution spectral data [20].

Hybrid architectures that combine attention with recurrent mechanisms or state space models represent a promising direction for capturing both long-range dependencies and sequential patterns in molecular data. The RWKV model exemplifies this approach, blending transformer-like processing with recurrent efficiency, potentially offering benefits for certain molecular modeling tasks [20].

Specialized Architectures for Scientific Domains

Domain-specific architectural innovations are emerging to address unique challenges in molecular representation. The Byte Latent Transformer introduces patch-based processing of byte-level data, dynamically allocating compute based on data complexity—an approach that could benefit raw molecular data processing [21].

Tabular foundation models like TabPFN demonstrate how transformer-based architectures can be adapted for structured scientific data, using two-way attention mechanisms that respect tabular structure while enabling in-context learning. This approach has shown particular promise for small-to-medium-sized datasets common in experimental sciences [19].

As materials foundation models evolve, we observe increasing architectural specialization for specific scientific modalities, from geometric learning for 3D molecular structures to equivariant networks for respecting physical symmetries. These specialized architectures, when integrated through multimodal fusion frameworks, promise to significantly advance materials discovery and optimization [22].

Diagram: Architecture Selection Framework for Materials Foundation Models. This decision framework illustrates how input modalities and task requirements should guide architectural selection, with encoder-decoder models excelling at cross-modal mapping, decoder-only models optimized for generation, and encoder-only models specialized for understanding tasks.

The emergence of powerful foundation models in materials science is intrinsically linked to the data representations upon which they are built [5]. The transition from hand-crafted features to automated, data-driven representation learning marks a paradigm shift in computational chemistry and drug discovery [23] [5]. Molecular representations serve as the critical translation layer between chemical structures and machine learning algorithms, enabling the prediction of properties, design of novel compounds, and acceleration of scientific discovery [23]. Within the context of materials foundation models, the choice of representation—whether string-based, graph-based, or three-dimensional—profoundly influences a model's ability to capture the intricate relationships between molecular structure and function [5]. This technical guide examines the core data modalities available for pretraining such models, comparing their theoretical foundations, practical implementations, and performance characteristics to inform researchers developing next-generation AI systems for materials discovery.

String-Based Representations: SMILES and Beyond

SMILES: The Established Standard

The Simplified Molecular-Input Line-Entry System (SMILES) represents one of the most widely adopted string-based representations in cheminformatics [24] [23]. Developed by Weininger in 1988, SMILES provides a compact, human-readable format for encoding chemical structures using ASCII characters to depict atoms and bonds within a molecule [24] [23]. This representation leverages a grammar based on molecular graph theory, where molecular structures are represented as chains of atoms with additional notations for branches and cycles [25]. The widespread adoption of SMILES across chemical databases like PubChem and ZINC has made it a natural choice for early language-based AI models in chemistry [24] [5].

Despite its popularity, SMILES exhibits significant limitations in AI-driven materials discovery. The representation can generate semantically invalid strings when used in generative models, often resulting in chemically impossible structures [24] [25]. SMILES also suffers from inconsistency in representing stereochemistry and certain chemical classes like organometallic compounds [24]. Furthermore, the complex grammar of SMILES presents challenges for machine learning models, particularly in maintaining syntactic and semantic validity during molecular generation [25].

SELFIES: A Robust Alternative

To address SMILES' limitations, SELFIES (SELF-referencing Embedded Strings) was developed as a 100% robust molecular string representation [25]. Unlike SMILES, every valid SELFIES string corresponds to a syntactically and semantically valid molecule, eliminating the problem of invalid structure generation [24] [25]. This robustness is achieved through a formal grammar based on Chomsky type-2 grammar and finite state automata, which localizes non-local features (rings and branches) and encodes physical constraints through different derivation states [25].

SELFIES demonstrates particular advantages in generative applications. Experiments show that models utilizing SELFIES, such as Variational Autoencoders, produce denser latent spaces and enable more comprehensive exploration of chemical space [24] [25]. The representation has enabled advanced combinatorial approaches like the STONED algorithm and robust genetic algorithms that can use arbitrary random modifications of molecular strings without sacrificing validity [25].

Tokenization Strategies for String Representations

Effective tokenization is crucial for processing chemical language representations in AI models. Recent research compares Byte Pair Encoding (BPE) with a novel approach called Atom Pair Encoding (APE) in BERT-based models [24]. Findings reveal that APE, particularly when used with SMILES representations, significantly outperforms BPE by preserving the integrity and contextual relationships among chemical elements, thereby enhancing classification accuracy in downstream tasks [24]. Performance evaluations using ROC-AUC metrics across HIV, toxicology, and blood-brain barrier penetration datasets demonstrate the critical role of specialized tokenization in processing chemical languages [24].

Table 1: Comparison of String-Based Molecular Representations

Characteristic	SMILES	SELFIES
Robustness	Can generate invalid molecules	100% robust; all strings valid
Readability	Human-readable	Human-readable with practice
Grammar Complexity	Complex grammar with non-local features	Formal grammar with localized features
Generative Performance	Often requires validity checks	Native validity in generation
Representation Capability	Struggles with complex chemical classes	Handles all SMILES-featured compounds
Latent Space Quality	Less dense latent spaces	Denser by two orders of magnitude

Graph-Based Representations: Capturing Molecular Topology

Molecular Graphs as Structured Representations

Molecular graphs provide a natural representation of chemical structures by explicitly encoding atoms as nodes and bonds as edges [26]. This representation retains richer structural information compared to string-based formats, making it particularly valuable for accurate property prediction [26]. Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) built on molecular graph data have been extensively utilized for molecular representation learning to predict a wide range of properties [26]. The explicit representation of connectivity patterns enables GNNs to capture important substructural features that correlate with chemical properties and biological activities.

A key challenge in molecular property prediction using graph representations lies in capturing long-range dependencies—the influence of distant atoms or substructures within a molecule on a target property [26]. While GNNs leverage neighborhood aggregation as their core mechanism, they face significant limitations in capturing these long-range dependencies due to issues like over-smoothing and over-squashing [26]. These limitations have motivated the development of hybrid architectures that combine GNNs with other sequence-processing approaches.

Advanced Graph-Based Architectures

Recent research has introduced innovative frameworks that enhance graph-based molecular representations. MolGraph-xLSTM represents one such approach that integrates extended Long Short-Term Memory (xLSTM) architectures with molecular graphs [26]. This model processes molecular graphs at two scales: atom-level and motif-level, where the motif-level graph represents partitioned substructures like aromatic rings within a molecule [26]. The simplified motif-level graph reduces complexity and eliminates cycle structures, creating a sequential-like topology that aligns well with xLSTM's strengths in processing sequential information [26].

The performance benefits of these advanced architectures are substantial. On MoleculeNet benchmarks, MolGraph-xLSTM achieves an average AUROC improvement of 3.18% for classification tasks and an RMSE reduction of 3.83% for regression tasks compared to baseline methods [26]. On Therapeutics Data Commons benchmarks, the model improves AUROC by 2.56% while reducing RMSE by 3.71% on average [26]. These results confirm the effectiveness of combining graph representations with sequential processing for learning generalizable molecular representations.

Interpretability in Graph-Based Models

A significant advantage of graph-based representations is their enhanced interpretability compared to string-based approaches. Visualization techniques can identify motifs and atomic sites with the highest model-assigned weights, providing insight into substructures most closely related to molecular properties [26]. For example, analysis of model interpretability has revealed attention to sulfonamide substructures, which are known to be strongly linked with adverse reactions, demonstrating alignment between highlighted substructures and known biological properties [26]. This interpretability is valuable for building trust in models and generating chemically plausible hypotheses.

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Molecular Representation Methods on Benchmark Tasks

Representation Type	Model Architecture	HIV Classification (ROC-AUC)	Tox21 Classification (ROC-AUC)	ESOL Regression (RMSE)
SMILES + BPE	BERT	0.763	0.811	0.842
SMILES + APE	BERT	0.802	0.849	0.796
SELFIES + BPE	BERT	0.771	0.819	0.827
Molecular Graph	Basic GNN	0.785	0.832	0.781
Molecular Graph	MolGraph-xLSTM	0.821	0.863	0.527

3D Representations: Incorporating Spatial Information

The Case for Three-Dimensional Representations

While 2D representations have dominated cheminformatics, three-dimensional molecular representations offer potentially superior predictive capability by encoding spatial relationships and conformer-specific properties [27]. The fundamental hypothesis supporting 3D representations is that molecular function and binding affinity are determined not just by topological connectivity but by precise spatial arrangements of atoms and functional groups [27]. This is particularly relevant for modeling biological interactions where molecular shape complementarity plays a crucial role in determining binding affinity and specificity.

Most foundation models for molecular property prediction are trained on 2D representations due to the scarcity of large-scale 3D datasets [5]. While datasets like ZINC and ChEMBL offer billions of 2D structures, comparable 3D datasets are not readily available [5]. An exception exists for inorganic solids like crystals, where property prediction models typically leverage 3D structures through graph-based or primitive cell feature representations [5]. This data availability gap represents a significant challenge for advancing 3D-aware foundation models.

E3FP: A 3D Fingerprint Approach

The Extended Three-Dimensional FingerPrint (E3FP) represents a significant advancement in 3D molecular representation [27]. Inspired by the widely used 2D Extended Connectivity FingerPrint (ECFP), E3FP applies similar logic to three-dimensional conformers [27]. The algorithm proceeds iteratively, drawing concentrically larger spheres around each atom and encoding the 3D atom neighborhood patterns within them. At each iteration, the orientation and connectivity of neighbors—including unbound atoms—is combined with the neighbors' identifiers from previous iterations to generate new joint identifiers representing three-dimensional substructures [27].

A key advantage of E3FP is its alignment-invariant nature, eliminating the computational expense of molecular alignment required by methods like ROCS (Rapid Overlay of Chemical Structures) [27]. E3FP also generates fixed-length feature vectors compatible with statistical and machine learning approaches already developed for 2D fingerprints [27]. When integrated with the Similarity Ensemble Approach (SEA), E3FP achieves higher precision-recall performance relative to SEA with ECFP on ChEMBL20, while maintaining equivalent receiver operating characteristic performance [27].

Conformer Generation and Handling

A fundamental aspect of 3D molecular representation is handling molecular conformers—the multiple energetically favorable 3D structures a molecule can adopt [27]. In the absence of solved structures, it's not always apparent which conformer a molecule will adopt in solution or during protein binding [27]. Accordingly, E3FP generates separate fingerprints for each of multiple potential conformers per molecule, typically employing protocols using packages like RDKit that determine the number of conformers needed based on rotatable bond count [27].

The multi-conformer approach acknowledges the dynamic nature of molecules and the potential for different conformers to exhibit different binding affinities to various targets. This conformer-aware representation captures the structural flexibility of molecules, potentially providing a more comprehensive basis for predicting bioactivity and physicochemical properties [27].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Tokenization Performance Evaluation

The comparative evaluation of tokenization methods for chemical language models follows a rigorous experimental protocol [24]. Researchers typically utilize BERT-based architectures pretrained using Masked Language Modeling (MLM) on large datasets of molecular strings [24]. The performance of different tokenization strategies (BPE vs. APE) is evaluated on downstream classification tasks using benchmark datasets like those from MoleculeNet, including HIV, toxicology, and blood-brain barrier penetration datasets [24]. Model performance is quantified using ROC-AUC metrics, with statistical significance testing to ensure observed differences are meaningful [24].

For tokenization-specific experiments, datasets are typically partitioned using stratified splits to maintain class distribution across training, validation, and test sets. The Atom Pair Encoding method involves identifying fundamental units in molecular strings based on atom pairs and their relationships, preserving chemical context better than frequency-based BPE approaches [24]. Hyperparameter optimization is conducted separately for each tokenization method to ensure fair comparison.

3D Fingerprint Generation Protocol

The generation of E3FP fingerprints follows a multi-step process [27]. First, conformer ensembles are generated for each molecule using protocols that determine the optimal number of conformers based on rotatable bond count [27]. The E3FP algorithm then assigns initial 32-bit integer identifiers to each atom based on properties including heavy atom neighbor count, valence minus neighboring hydrogens, atomic number, atomic mass, atomic charge, bound hydrogen count, and ring membership [27].

The algorithm proceeds through iterative spherical expansion, with each iteration increasing the radius around each atom and capturing increasingly larger substructures. At each iteration, the connectivity and spatial relationships of atoms within the sphere are incorporated into updated identifiers [27]. Finally, the sparse bit vector representation is folded down to a fixed length (typically 1024 bits) for efficient storage and comparison [27]. The entire process is implemented in open-source packages, making it accessible to researchers.

Graph Model Training and Evaluation

The development and validation of graph-based models like MolGraph-xLSTM follows comprehensive benchmarking protocols [26]. Models are typically evaluated on diverse datasets from MoleculeNet and TDC benchmarks, covering both classification and regression tasks [26]. Training employs standardized data splits to enable fair comparison across methods, with hyperparameter optimization conducted using validation sets separate from final test sets [26].

For the dual-level graph approach, motif identification is a critical preprocessing step. This involves partitioning atom-level graphs into meaningful substructures using predefined rules or automated approaches [26]. The model then processes both representations, with integration typically occurring through concatenation or attention mechanisms. Interpretability analysis follows training, using techniques like activation maximization or attention visualization to identify substructures contributing significantly to predictions [26].

Diagram 1: Workflow for Molecular Foundation Model Development showing the parallel processing of different molecular representations and their integration in pretraining.

Software and Computational Tools

Table 3: Essential Software Tools for Molecular Representation Research

Tool Name	Primary Function	Application Context
RDKit	Cheminformatics and machine learning	Molecule processing, descriptor calculation, conformer generation
SELFIES Python Package	Molecular string representation	Conversion between SMILES and SELFIES, robust molecular generation
OpenSMILES	SMILES specification implementation	Standardized SMILES parsing and generation
Deep Graph Library (DGL)	Graph neural networks	Implementation of GNNs for molecular graphs
PyTor Geometric	Graph neural networks	Advanced GNN architectures and molecular property prediction
Hugging Face Transformers	Natural language processing	Transformer models for chemical language processing
E3FP	3D fingerprint generation	Generation of alignment-invariant 3D molecular fingerprints

Datasets and Benchmarks

The development and evaluation of molecular representation methods relies on standardized datasets and benchmarks. Public databases such as PubChem, ZINC, and ChEMBL provide large-scale molecular data for pretraining foundation models [5]. These databases contain millions of compounds with associated properties, enabling data-hungry deep learning models to learn meaningful representations [5].

For standardized evaluation, benchmarks like MoleculeNet and the Therapeutics Data Commons (TDC) provide curated datasets spanning multiple property prediction tasks [26]. These benchmarks include classification tasks (e.g., toxicity prediction, bioactivity classification) and regression tasks (e.g., solubility, binding affinity prediction) [26]. Using these standardized benchmarks enables fair comparison across different representation approaches and model architectures.

Specialized datasets also exist for 3D representation learning, including crystal structure databases for inorganic materials and protein-ligand complex databases for structure-based drug design [5]. While typically smaller than 2D molecular datasets, these resources provide critical training data for 3D-aware models.

The data universe for pretraining materials foundation models encompasses diverse representation modalities, each with distinct strengths and limitations. String-based representations like SMILES and SELFIES offer compatibility with natural language processing architectures and efficient storage, with SELFIES providing particular advantages in generative applications through its guaranteed validity [24] [25]. Graph-based representations explicitly capture molecular topology, enabling more intuitive modeling of structure-property relationships and providing enhanced interpretability [26]. Three-dimensional representations like E3FP incorporate spatial information potentially critical for predicting bioactivity and physical properties [27].

The future of molecular foundation models likely lies in multimodal approaches that integrate complementary representation types [23] [5]. Such integration could leverage the computational efficiency of 1D representations with the structural explicitness of graphs and the spatial awareness of 3D representations. Recent research demonstrates that combining atom-level and motif-level graph representations already yields performance improvements, suggesting broader multimodality could further enhance model capabilities [26].

As the field progresses, key challenges remain in scaling 3D representation learning, improving model interpretability, and enhancing generalization to novel chemical regions [5]. The development of larger, more diverse 3D datasets will be particularly important for advancing spatially-aware foundation models [5] [27]. Through continued refinement of molecular representations and their integration in multimodal architectures, foundation models promise to dramatically accelerate the discovery of new materials and therapeutic compounds.

From Theory to Practice: Methodologies and Real-World Applications in Biomedicine

The field of materials discovery is undergoing a profound transformation driven by the emergence of foundation models. These models, trained on broad data using self-supervision at scale, can be adapted to a wide range of downstream tasks, representing a fundamental shift from task-specific models to generalized AI systems [5]. This revolution is particularly impactful in the screening of critical molecular properties—toxicity, solubility, and bioactivity—where traditional experimental methods remain time-consuming, costly, and impractical at scale [28]. The emergence of sophisticated predictive capabilities represents more than incremental improvement; it constitutes a paradigm shift in how researchers approach materials design and risk assessment.

Foundation models for materials science have evolved through distinct phases: from early expert systems relying on hand-crafted symbolic representations, to task-specific machine learning with hand-crafted features, to the current era of transfer learning where representations are learned from massive datasets [5]. This evolution enables a decoupling of representation learning from downstream tasks, allowing sophisticated predictive capabilities even with limited target-specific data. The philosophical underpinning of this approach harks back to the age of specific feature design, but through the lens of an oracle trained through exposure to phenomenal volumes of often noisy and unlabeled data [5]. For researchers and drug development professionals, this translates to unprecedented acceleration in screening pipelines, with models capable of predicting properties directly from structural information while providing mechanistic insights previously obscured in black-box models.

Foundation Models and Emergent Capabilities in Materials Science

Architectural Foundations and Emergent Behaviors

Foundation models in materials science typically employ transformer-based architectures, which can be categorized into encoder-only, decoder-only, and encoder-decoder configurations. Encoder-only models, drawing from the success of BERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers), focus on understanding and representing input data to generate meaningful representations for further processing or predictions [5]. These excel at property prediction tasks where comprehensive understanding of molecular structure is required. Decoder-only models specialize in generating new outputs by predicting one token at a time based on given input and previously generated tokens, making them ideal for generative tasks like molecular design [5].

The scaling of these models—through increased parameters, expanded training datasets, and enhanced computational resources—has been linked to various emergent abilities previously unobserved in narrower AI systems [29]. These emergent capabilities range from advanced reasoning and in-context learning to sophisticated problem-solving that mimics scientific intuition. For property prediction, this manifests as accurate extrapolation to novel chemical spaces, few-shot learning with minimal training examples, and multi-property optimization that balances competing molecular characteristics [5]. The emergent nature of these capabilities means they become apparent only after models reach certain scale thresholds, creating a paradigm where model size directly enables novel scientific functionalities.

Data Extraction and Curation for Effective Pre-training

The starting point for successful pre-training and instruction tuning of foundational models is the availability of significant volumes of high-quality data [5]. For materials discovery, this principle is particularly critical due to intricate dependencies where minute structural details can profoundly influence properties—a phenomenon known as "activity cliffs" in cheminformatics [5]. Advanced data-extraction models must efficiently parse materials information from diverse habitats including scientific literature, patents, and proprietary databases, handling multiple modalities such as text, tables, images, and molecular structures [5].

Modern approaches leverage named entity recognition (NER) for text-based extraction, vision transformers for identifying molecular structures from images, and graph neural networks for processing structural information [5]. Recent studies aim to merge multiple modalities for extracting general knowledge from chemistry literature, with specialized algorithms like Plot2Spectra demonstrating how data points can be extracted from spectroscopy plots in scientific literature, enabling large-scale analysis of material properties that would otherwise be inaccessible to text-based models [5]. This comprehensive data curation enables foundation models to develop rich, transferable representations that power accurate property prediction across diverse chemical spaces.

Computational Frameworks for Property Prediction

Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up Approaches

Computational strategies for predicting intrinsic natural substance toxicity fall into two primary categories: top-down and bottom-up approaches [30]. Each paradigm offers distinct advantages and is suited to different aspects of property prediction, with the choice depending on available data, desired interpretability, and specific prediction targets.

Top-down approaches involve utilizing existing knowledge or databases to predict toxicity, relying on established correlations between chemical structures and toxicity endpoints [30]. These methods typically leverage statistical models or machine learning algorithms trained on large datasets of experimental toxicity data, extrapolating patterns from known compounds to rapidly screen and prioritize natural products for further evaluation. Bottom-up approaches start at a more granular level, focusing on understanding underlying molecular mechanisms from first principles [30]. These methods involve computational simulation of molecular interactions and biological pathways to elucidate how natural products may interact with cellular components or physiological processes to induce toxicity.

Table 1: Comparison of Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches for Property Prediction

Aspect	Top-Down Approaches	Bottom-Up Approaches
Philosophical Basis	Leverages existing experimental data and established correlations	Focuses on fundamental molecular mechanisms and first principles
Primary Methods	Text Mining, Association Rule Mining, QSAR, Support Vector Machines	Random Walk with Restart, PBPK Modeling, Molecular Docking
Data Requirements	Large datasets of experimental toxicity data	Detailed molecular structure and mechanistic understanding
Interpretability	Limited mechanistic insight, correlation-focused	High mechanistic insight, causation-focused
Implementation Speed	Rapid screening suitable for large compound libraries	Computationally intensive, slower implementation
Best Applications	High-throughput screening, early-stage risk assessment	Detailed mechanistic studies, lead optimization

Machine Learning Methods and Model Selection

The selection of appropriate machine learning models plays a critical role in property prediction performance. Both top-down and bottom-up approaches employ diverse algorithms suited to their specific data characteristics and prediction goals [30].

Top-down methods include text mining techniques that utilize Latent Dirichlet Allocation and Named Entity Recognition to extract relevant information from textual sources via natural language processing [30]. Association Rule Mining employs algorithms like Apriori and FP-Growth to identify correlations between natural product components and toxicity outcomes. Support Vector Machines enable classification of compounds as toxic or nontoxic based on patterns in training data with features such as molecular structures and physicochemical properties [30]. Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship models correlate structural features of chemicals with their biological activity or toxicity endpoints using various algorithms including Random Forest and Artificial Neural Networks [30].

Bottom-up methods include Random Walk with Restart algorithms, which simulate a random walk process on a network representing relationships between compounds, targets, biological pathways, and toxicity outcomes [30]. Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic models employ Nonlinear Mixed-Effects Modeling and Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods to predict the absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of substances in the body [30]. Molecular Docking utilizes rigid-body and flexible docking algorithms to predict the preferred orientation and conformation of ligands within protein target binding sites, calculating binding energy or affinity to prioritize compounds for further testing [30].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

QMSA-Derived Descriptor Framework for PFAS Bioactivity Prediction

A novel machine learning approach based on quantitative molecular surface analysis of molecular electrostatic potential has demonstrated significant improvements in predicting PFAS bioactivity [28]. This methodology addresses key limitations in traditional models, including inadequate predictive performance and lack of interpretability, by employing descriptors that capture fundamental insights into electrostatic characteristics deterministically involved in non-covalent interactions relevant to toxicity [28].

The experimental workflow comprises three critical phases:

• Molecular Representation Generation: 3D geometrical structures of compounds are generated from SMILES and optimized through density functional theory calculations, followed by generation of QMSA descriptors from molecular electrostatic potential on the van der Waals surface [28].
• Model Development and Training: Five different machine learning models—Random Forest, Extreme Gradient Boosting, Support Vector Machines, Multilayer Perceptron, and Stacking models—are trained, tuned, and evaluated using rigorous validation methodologies [28].
• Interpretation and Validation: The contribution of QMSA descriptors to PFAS bioactivity is unraveled through Shapley analysis, molecular docking, and molecular dynamics simulations, providing mechanistic insights and validating predictions [28].

This protocol specifically addresses PFAS inhibitory effects on five biological targets: Tyrosyl-DNA phosphodiesterase 1 (both with and without camptothecin), ATXN2 protein, transcription factor SMAD3, and transcription factor NRF2—all critical for understanding PFAS toxicological effects [28].

Foundation Model Fine-Tuning for Property Prediction

The adaptation of foundation models for specific property prediction tasks follows a structured methodology that leverages transfer learning while addressing the unique characteristics of materials science data [5].

The fine-tuning protocol involves:

• Base Model Selection: Choosing appropriate pre-trained models based on architectural alignment with target tasks, with encoder-only models like BERT variants typically selected for prediction tasks and decoder-only models like GPT architectures preferred for generation tasks [5].
• Domain Adaptation: Pre-training on broad scientific corpora to embed fundamental chemical knowledge before task-specific fine-tuning, addressing the domain shift between general language and scientific terminology [5].
• Multi-Task Optimization: Simultaneous training on related property prediction tasks to leverage shared representations and improve generalization, particularly valuable for sparse data scenarios [5].
• Geometric Integration: Incorporating 3D structural information through graph representations or spatial attention mechanisms to capture conformational influences on properties, addressing limitations of 2D representations [5].

This methodology has demonstrated particular effectiveness for predicting properties where quantum chemical calculations are prohibitively expensive, enabling high-throughput screening with accuracy approaching computational benchmarks [5].

Data Visualization and Interpretation Framework

Color Palette Selection for Scientific Visualization

Effective visualization of property prediction results requires careful color palette selection to ensure clear communication of complex scientific data. Research from 2025 provides evidence-based guidance for color scheme selection, demonstrating that blue-based triadic palettes provide the most balanced mix of clarity, comfort, and visual appeal across various color vision deficiencies [31]. The study tested twelve web color schemes across people with deuteranopia, protanopia, and tritanopia, revealing that blue consistently proved to be the most readable and comfortable hue across all types of color blindness [31].

Critical findings for scientific visualization include:

• Triadic schemes combining three evenly spaced colors on the spectrum performed best overall, offering sufficient contrast to separate elements while preserving visual harmony [31].
• Red-green combinations remain the biggest accessibility pitfall, causing significant confusion for users with color vision deficiencies [31].
• Extreme contrast ratios, while technically compliant, often created glare and visual fatigue, with the most comfortable viewing range occurring within moderate contrast levels where Weber ratios stayed between 0.4 and 0.8 [31].

Table 2: Color Palette Guidelines for Property Prediction Visualization

Palette Type	Best Use Cases	Accessibility Considerations	Example Applications
Qualitative	Distinct categories with no inherent order	Limit to ~10 distinct colors; ensure adequate contrast between all pairs	Comparing toxicity levels across different molecular scaffolds
Sequential	Ordered data showing magnitude or intensity	Use perceptually uniform gradients from light to dark	Visualizing solubility gradients or bioactivity intensity
Diverging	Data centered around a critical midpoint	Use neutral middle tone with diverging hues	Displaying above/below average toxicity or enhancement/inhibition
Blue-Triadic	Complex multi-dimensional data	Most accessible across color vision deficiencies	Multi-parameter optimization displays and high-dimensional embeddings

Visualizing Molecular Descriptors and Model Interpretations

The interpretation of complex property prediction models requires sophisticated visualization approaches to make computational insights accessible to domain experts. QMSA-derived descriptors enable particularly intuitive visualization through molecular surface maps that color-code electrostatic potential, providing direct visual correlation between molecular features and predicted properties [28].

Advanced interpretation techniques include:

• Shapley value plots that quantify and visualize the contribution of individual molecular descriptors to model predictions, highlighting specific structural features associated with toxicity or bioactivity [28].
• Molecular docking visualizations that render predicted binding poses between compounds and biological targets, enabling assessment of interaction mechanisms [28].
• Descriptor correlation networks that map relationships between computational descriptors and experimental endpoints, revealing interconnected descriptor influences [28].

These visualization approaches transform black-box models into interpretable tools, providing researchers with intuitive understanding of structure-property relationships and enabling data-driven molecular design decisions.

Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

The Scientist's Toolkit for Property Prediction

Implementing effective property prediction pipelines requires access to comprehensive computational tools and data resources. The field has evolved from fragmented, specialized tools to integrated platforms that support end-to-end workflow from data extraction to prediction and interpretation [5].

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Property Prediction

Tool Category	Specific Tools/Resources	Function/Purpose	Data Type
Chemical Databases	PubChem, ZINC, ChEMBL [5]	Source of chemical structures and associated properties	2D/3D structures, properties
Toxicity Prediction	QSAR Toolbox, LiverTox, DILI-Rank, ToxCast, Tox21 [30]	Specialized toxicity prediction and risk assessment	Chemical descriptors, toxicity endpoints
Data Extraction	Named Entity Recognition, Vision Transformers [5]	Extract structured information from literature and patents	Text, images, tables
Molecular Representation	SMILES, SELFIES, Graph Representations [5]	Standardized encoding of molecular structure	String notations, graphs
Quantum Chemistry	Density Functional Theory, MOPAC [28]	Calculate electronic properties and optimize geometries	3D structures, electronic properties
Machine Learning	Random Forest, XGBoost, SVM, GCN [28]	Model training and prediction	Features, targets
Interpretation	Shapley Analysis, Molecular Docking [28]	Model interpretation and mechanistic insights	Model outputs, binding poses
2B-(SP)	2B-(SP), MF:C71H123N26O29P, MW:1835.9 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
M617 TFA	M617 TFA, MF:C112H161N29O28, MW:2361.7 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Workflow Integration and Automation

Modern property prediction research requires seamless integration between computational tools and experimental workflows. Foundation models enable this integration through standardized APIs and modular architectures that allow researchers to compose complex prediction pipelines from reusable components [5]. Critical integration points include automated data extraction from electronic lab notebooks, real-time model updating with experimental results, and bidirectional communication between prediction tools and laboratory instrumentation.

The emerging paradigm treats prediction tools not as standalone applications but as interconnected services within a larger research ecosystem. This approach enables continuous model improvement through active learning, where the most informative experiments are automatically identified and prioritized based on prediction uncertainty and potential impact [5]. The result is a virtuous cycle where predictions inform experiments, and experimental results refine predictions, accelerating the overall research process.

Workflow Diagrams

Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up Prediction Approaches

Foundation Model Fine-Tuning Protocol

QMSA-Driven PFAS Bioactivity Prediction

The traditional drug discovery pipeline is a time-intensive and costly endeavor, often requiring over 12 years and an average investment of USD 2.6 billion to bring a single drug to market [32]. This process typically begins with biological target identification, followed by experimental screening of vast molecular libraries to find "hit" compounds that interact with the target—an approach that becomes intractable when confronting the estimated 10^60 theoretically feasible compounds [11]. In response to this challenge, inverse design has emerged as a transformative computational paradigm that flips the traditional discovery process on its head. Instead of screening existing libraries for molecules with desired properties, inverse design starts with the desired properties and uses algorithmic approaches to generate novel molecular structures that satisfy these specified criteria [11] [33].

This revolutionary approach is powered by advances in generative artificial intelligence and molecular representation learning, which have enabled the development of foundation models capable of navigating the vast chemical space to design compounds with predefined characteristics [5] [10]. The integration of these methodologies within materials foundation models research represents a significant emergent capability, demonstrating how models pretrained on broad scientific data can be adapted to specialized downstream tasks in molecular design [5] [4]. This technical guide examines the core principles, methodologies, and applications of inverse design and molecular generation, framing them within the broader context of foundational AI capabilities that are reshaping computational drug discovery.

Theoretical Foundations: From Molecular Representation to Foundation Models

Molecular Representation Learning

The foundation of all computational molecular design lies in molecular representation—the translation of chemical structures into mathematically computable formats [23] [10]. Traditional representation methods included simplified molecular-input line-entry system (SMILES) strings and molecular fingerprints, which encode substructural information as binary vectors [23] [10]. While computationally efficient, these representations struggle to capture the full complexity of molecular interactions and conformations essential for accurate property prediction [10].

Modern AI-driven approaches have revolutionized molecular representation through deep learning techniques that automatically learn continuous, high-dimensional feature embeddings directly from molecular data [23] [10]. As illustrated in Table 1, these representations can be categorized into several architectural paradigms, each with distinct advantages for molecular design tasks.

Table 1: Deep Learning Approaches for Molecular Representation and Generation

Model Type	Key Architectures	Molecular Format	Primary Applications	Key Advantages
Language Model-Based	Transformer, BERT, GPT	SMILES, SELFIES [5] [23]	Property prediction, molecular generation [5]	Leverages NLP advancements, understands chemical "language" [23]
Graph-Based	Graph Neural Networks (GNNs)	Molecular graphs (atoms as nodes, bonds as edges) [10]	Property prediction, molecular properties [10]	Explicitly encodes molecular topology and connectivity [10]
Geometric Deep Learning	3D GNNs, Equivariant Models	3D molecular structures [10]	Quantum property prediction, molecular interactions	Captures spatial and conformational information [10]
Generative Models	VAEs, GANs, Diffusion Models [11] [33]	Multiple representations (graph, string, 3D) [33]	De novo molecular design, scaffold hopping [23] [33]	Enables novel molecular generation, inverse design [11]

Foundation Models for Molecular Science

Foundation models represent a paradigm shift in scientific AI, defined as "models that are trained on broad data (generally using self-supervision at scale) that can be adapted to a wide range of downstream tasks" [5]. In molecular science, these models typically employ a two-stage process: unsupervised pretraining on large-scale unlabeled molecular data, followed by task-specific fine-tuning with significantly less labeled data [5].

The architectural separation of representation learning from downstream tasks has led to the development of encoder-only models (focused on understanding and representing input data) and decoder-only models (designed for generating new molecular outputs) [5]. This decoupling enables the creation of specialized models for property prediction (typically encoder-focused) and molecular generation (typically decoder-focused) while sharing common foundational representations [5].

Core Methodologies in Molecular Generation

Constrained Generative Architectures

Modern molecular generation employs sophisticated generative AI architectures that can incorporate multiple constraints during the generation process. These include variational autoencoders (VAEs), generative adversarial networks (GANs), autoregressive transformers, and score-based denoising diffusion probabilistic models (DDPMs) [33]. The key innovation in these models is their ability to perform inverse design—given a set of desired properties, the model generates molecular structures satisfying those properties by exploring the chemical latent space [11].

The TSMMG (Teacher-Student Multi-constraint Molecular Generation) framework exemplifies this approach, implementing a knowledge distillation paradigm where a "student" large language model incorporates knowledge from various specialized "teacher" models and tools [34]. This framework constructs text-molecule pairs by extracting molecular knowledge from teachers, enabling the model to generate novel molecules through natural language prompts describing desired properties [34].

Table 2: Performance of Molecular Generation Models on Multi-Constraint Tasks

Constraint Level	Average Validity	Success Ratio	Example Tasks	Key Challenges
Two-Constraint	>99%	82.58% [34]	FG+LogP, FG+QED, FG+DRD2 [34]	Balancing competing property requirements
Three-Constraint	>99%	68.03% [34]	FG+DRD2+QED, FG+GSK3+QED [34]	Maintaining chemical validity while satisfying multiple constraints
Four-Constraint	>99%	67.48% [34]	FG+DRD2+QED+SAs, FG+GSK3+QED+BBB [34]	Computational complexity of searching high-dimensional chemical space
Zero-Shot Five-Constraint	>99%	Demonstrated capability [34]	Binding to EP2 and EP4 with drug-likeness, synthetic accessibility, and BBB penetration [34]	Generalization to unseen constraint combinations

Structural Constraint Integration

For materials with specific quantum properties or structural features, geometric constraint integration becomes essential. The SCIGEN (Structural Constraint Integration in GENerative model) approach addresses this challenge by ensuring diffusion models adhere to user-defined structural rules at each iterative generation step [6]. This method enables the generation of materials with specific geometric patterns like Kagome and Lieb lattices, which are associated with exotic quantum phenomena but are rare in natural materials [6].

SCIGEN operates by blocking model generations that don't align with specified structural rules, steering the generative process toward materials with target geometries known to exhibit desirable quantum properties [6]. When applied to the DiffCSP materials generation model, SCIGEN generated over 10 million material candidates with Archimedean lattices, with subsequent synthesis confirming the AI model's predictions largely aligned with actual material properties [6].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

TSMMG Framework Implementation

The TSMMG experimental protocol implements a three-stage knowledge distillation process for multi-constraint molecular generation:

Diagram 1: TSMMG Teacher-Student Framework for Molecular Generation

Stage 1: Knowledge Acquisition and Dataset Construction

• Collect large-scale molecular datasets from publicly available libraries (e.g., ZINC, ChEMBL) [5] [34]
• Process molecules through specialized "teacher" models and tools to extract structural details, physicochemical properties, binding affinities, and ADMET attributes [34]
• Organize extracted knowledge into structured text descriptions paired with corresponding molecular representations (SMILES/SELFIES) [34]
• Generate diverse text prompts covering various constraint types including functional groups, drug-likeness (QED), synthetic accessibility (SA), target affinity (DRD2, GSK3), and ADMET properties (BBB, HIA) [34]

Stage 2: Model Training and Optimization

• Initialize transformer-based decoder architecture with pretrained language model weights [34]
• Train model on text-molecule pairs using standard language modeling objectives
• Implement multi-task learning across different constraint types to enhance generalization
• Optimize model parameters to maximize likelihood of generating valid molecules given text descriptions [34]

Stage 3: Molecular Generation and Validation

• Input natural language prompts describing desired multi-property constraints
• Generate molecular structures autoregressively using trained model
• Validate generated molecules using established computational tools (e.g., RDKit) for chemical validity and property adherence [34]
• Employ teacher models for verification of generated molecules against specified constraints [34]

Structural Constraint Integration with SCIGEN

The SCIGEN methodology implements geometric constraints in generative materials models through the following experimental protocol:

Diagram 2: SCIGEN Structural Constraint Integration Workflow

Step 1: Constraint Specification

• Define target geometric patterns (e.g., Archimedean lattices, Kagome lattices) using mathematical representations [6]
• Encode constraints as rules that can be applied at each step of the generative process
• Configure constraint strictness parameters based on application requirements

Step 2: Constrained Generation Process

• Integrate SCIGEN with base generative diffusion model (e.g., DiffCSP) [6]
• At each denoising step, evaluate candidate structures against geometric constraints
• Block or redirect generation paths that violate specified structural rules
• Maintain diversity in generated structures while adhering to constraints

Step 3: Validation and Synthesis

• Screen generated candidates for stability using computational metrics [6]
• Perform detailed simulations (e.g., DFT calculations) on promising candidates to verify properties [6]
• Select top candidates for experimental synthesis and characterization
• Validate actual material properties against model predictions [6]

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Molecular Generation

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Databases	Key Functionality	Application in Inverse Design
Chemical Databases	PubChem, ZINC, ChEMBL [5]	Provide structured molecular information for training	Source of training data for foundation models, benchmark for generated molecules
Representation Tools	RDKit, DeepSMILES, SELFIES [10]	Convert between molecular structures and computable formats	Preprocessing, validity checking, and representation conversion
Property Prediction	QSPR models, ADMET predictors [34] [32]	Calculate molecular properties from structure	Validation of generated molecules against target properties
Generative Frameworks	Transformer architectures, Diffusion models, GNNs [11] [33]	Implement molecular generation algorithms	Core infrastructure for de novo molecular design
Validation Suites	Molecular docking, Synthetic accessibility scorers [34] [32]	Assess generated molecule feasibility	Filtering and prioritizing generated molecules for experimental testing
Specialized Models	TSMMG, SCIGEN, MatterGen [34] [6] [35]	Address specific molecular generation challenges	Solving specialized inverse design problems with multiple constraints

Emerging Capabilities and Future Directions

The field of inverse design and molecular generation is rapidly evolving, with several emergent capabilities demonstrating the transformative potential of foundation models in materials research. Models like TSMMG exhibit zero-shot learning capabilities, successfully generating molecules that satisfy combinations of properties not encountered during training [34]. This generalization ability suggests that molecular foundation models are developing a deeper understanding of chemical principles rather than merely memorizing training data patterns.

The integration of multi-modal data represents another frontier, with advanced models incorporating textual, structural, and spatial information to create more comprehensive molecular representations [5] [10]. Similarly, cross-modal fusion strategies that integrate graphs, sequences, and quantum descriptors are enabling more accurate property prediction and molecular generation [10].

Future directions in the field include the development of continual learning frameworks that allow models to adapt to new data without catastrophic forgetting, and differentiable simulation pipelines that integrate physical laws directly into the generative process [10] [35]. The convergence of generative AI with autonomous robotic laboratories promises to create closed-loop discovery systems where AI-generated molecules are automatically synthesized and tested, with results feeding back to improve the models [35].

As molecular foundation models continue to evolve, they are poised to dramatically accelerate the drug discovery process, enabling researchers to navigate the vast chemical space with unprecedented efficiency and precision. The emergent capabilities in this field represent not just incremental improvements but a fundamental transformation in how we approach molecular design and optimization.

The field of materials science and drug discovery is undergoing a paradigm shift with the emergence of foundation models. These models, trained on broad data at scale, are defined by their adaptability to a wide range of downstream tasks [5]. However, the traditional approach of relying on a single data modality—such as molecular graphs or textual representations—fails to capture the complex, multifaceted nature of molecular systems. A molecule's properties are determined not only by its two-dimensional structure but also by three-dimensional conformation, spectral characteristics, and rich textual knowledge embedded in scientific literature. The (R)- and (S)-enantiomers of Thalidomide represent a classic example, sharing identical topological graphs but exhibiting drastically different biological activities due to subtle stereochemical variations [16].

Multimodal data fusion has emerged as a transformative approach to address these limitations, integrating heterogeneous data sources including molecular graphs, textual descriptions, and spectral information to create a more comprehensive molecular representation [16] [36]. This integration enables foundation models to develop emergent capabilities—properties not explicitly programmed but arising from the model's scale and architectural design—including cross-modal reasoning, property prediction for novel compounds, and generation of molecules with targeted characteristics. By leveraging complementary information across modalities, researchers can overcome the inherent limitations of unimodal approaches, where critical information such as 3D conformation is often omitted from 2D representations like SMILES or SELFIES [5]. This whitepaper provides a technical examination of multimodal fusion methodologies, their experimental validation, and implementation frameworks specifically within the context of advanced materials foundation model research.

Core Methodologies in Multimodal Fusion

Multimodal fusion strategies can be categorized by their integration point in the model architecture, each with distinct advantages and implementation considerations. The optimal approach depends on modality characteristics, data availability, and specific downstream tasks.

Fusion Architectures: Early, Intermediate, and Late Fusion

Early Fusion integrates raw or minimally processed data from different modalities during the pre-training phase. This approach aggregates information directly from source modalities but requires predefined weights for each modality, which may not reflect their relevance for specific downstream tasks [16]. For instance, molecular graphs, textual descriptors, and spectral data can be combined at the input level, allowing the model to learn cross-modal correlations from the beginning of the processing pipeline.

Intermediate Fusion captures interactions between modalities during the fine-tuning process, allowing for dynamic information integration. This method is particularly beneficial when modalities provide complementary information that enhances overall performance. The MMFRL (Multimodal Fusion with Relational Learning) framework demonstrates how intermediate fusion can effectively combine features at mid-level abstraction, allowing downstream tasks to benefit from modalities not directly accessible during fine-tuning [16]. This approach has achieved superior performance in multiple molecular property prediction tasks by enabling richer feature interactions.

Late Fusion processes each modality independently through separate models, combining their outputs at the decision level. This separation allows thorough examination of each modality's contribution and is especially effective when specific modalities dominate performance metrics [16]. For example, in property prediction tasks where spectral data provides the most reliable signals, late fusion can maximize this strength while incorporating supporting information from other modalities.

Cross-Modal Alignment and Relational Learning

Effective fusion requires aligning representations across modalities in a shared latent space. Cross-modal contrastive learning has proven highly effective for this purpose, as demonstrated by the Crystal CLIP framework, which aligns text embeddings with graph neural network embeddings [37]. This framework maximizes cosine similarity for positive pairs (graph embeddings and corresponding textual descriptions from the same crystal structure) while minimizing similarity for negative pairs, creating a unified representation space where semantically similar concepts cluster together regardless of modality [37].

Modified Relational Learning (MRL) offers another advanced approach by providing a continuous relation metric to evaluate relationships among instances in the feature space [16]. Unlike traditional contrastive learning that relies on binary positive-negative pairs, MRL captures complex relationships by converting pairwise self-similarity into relative similarity, evaluating how the similarity between two elements compares to other pairs in the dataset. This approach enables a more comprehensive understanding of inter-instance relations, effectively capturing both localized and global relationships [16].

Table 1: Comparison of Multimodal Fusion Strategies

Fusion Type	Integration Point	Advantages	Limitations	Ideal Use Cases
Early Fusion	Input/Pre-training	Simple implementation; learns cross-modal correlations from start	Requires predefined modality weights; less flexible	When modalities are equally informative and complementary
Intermediate Fusion	Feature processing/Fine-tuning	Dynamic integration; captures complex modality interactions	Computationally intensive; requires careful architecture design	When modalities compensate for each other's strengths/weaknesses
Late Fusion	Decision/Output	Maximizes dominant modalities; robust to missing data	May miss fine-grained cross-modal interactions	When specific modalities strongly dominate task performance

Experimental Frameworks and Validation

Multimodal Pre-training and Downstream Adaptation

The MMFRL framework demonstrates an effective approach for leveraging multimodal information even when auxiliary data is unavailable during inference. Researchers pre-trained multiple replicas of molecular Graph Neural Networks (GNNs), with each replica dedicated to learning from a specific modality (NMR, molecular images, fingerprints) [16]. This approach allows downstream tasks to benefit from multimodal data that is not accessible during fine-tuning. In experimental validation, models pre-trained with NMR modality achieved highest performance across three classification tasks, while image-modality pre-training excelled in solubility-related regression tasks, aligning with prior literature [16].

For downstream adaptation, the pre-trained models can be fine-tuned using various fusion strategies. In the MMFRL evaluation, intermediate fusion achieved the highest scores in seven distinct tasks within the MoleculeNet benchmark, while late fusion performed best in two tasks [16]. This demonstrates that the optimal fusion strategy is task-dependent and should be experimentally determined.

Text-Guided Crystal Structure Generation

The Chemeleon model demonstrates advanced multimodal generation capabilities through a two-stage framework combining cross-modal alignment with generative diffusion [37]. The first stage employs Crystal CLIP, a contrastive learning framework that aligns text embeddings from a transformer encoder with graph embeddings from equivariant GNNs. The second stage consists of a classifier-free guidance denoising diffusion model that generates compositions and crystal structures conditioned on the aligned text embeddings [37].

Experimental validation involved training on inorganic crystal structures from the Materials Project (40 or fewer atoms in primitive unit cell) with a chronological test split to assess generation of unseen future structures [37]. The model used three text description types: composition-only (reduced composition in alphabetical order), formatted text (composition + crystal system), and general text (diverse descriptions from LLMs). Metrics including validity, coverage, match, and reliability demonstrated the advantage of cross-modally aligned embeddings over baseline BERT models [37].

Constrained Generation for Quantum Materials

The SCIGEN (Structural Constraint Integration in GENerative model) approach addresses the challenge of generating materials with specific quantum properties by incorporating geometric constraints into diffusion models [6]. Unlike standard generative models that optimize for stability, SCIGEN integrates user-defined structural rules at each generation step, steering the model toward creating materials with atomic structures likely to exhibit target quantum properties like Kagome and Lieb lattices [6].

In experimental validation, researchers applied SCIGEN to DiffCSP, generating over 10 million material candidates with Archimedean lattices [6]. After stability screening and detailed simulation of 26,000 materials, magnetism was identified in 41% of structures. Two previously undiscovered compounds (TiPdBi and TiPbSb) were synthesized, with experimental properties largely aligning with model predictions [6].

Quantitative Performance Analysis

Rigorous evaluation across standardized benchmarks demonstrates the significant advantages of multimodal approaches over unimodal baselines.

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Multimodal Fusion Models

Model/ Framework	Dataset	Key Metrics	Performance Highlights	Modalities Combined
MMFRL [16]	MoleculeNet (11 tasks)	Accuracy, Robustness	Significantly outperformed all baseline models and average performance of DMPNN pretrained with extra modalities	Molecular graphs, NMR, Images, Fingerprints
Chemeleon [37]	Materials Project (chronological split)	Validity, Coverage, Match, Reliability	Successfully generated chemically valid and novel crystal structures from text descriptions	Text, 3D crystal structures
XMolCap [38]	L+M-24, ChEBI-20	BLEU, ROUGE, METEOR	Achieved state-of-the-art performance on molecular captioning benchmarks	Molecular images, SMILES, Graph structures
SCIGEN [6]	Archimedean lattices	Stability rate, Magnetic percentage	Generated 10M candidates; 41% of simulated subset showed magnetism; 2 novel compounds synthesized	Geometric constraints, Composition

The MMFRL framework demonstrated particular strength in scenarios where individual modalities performed poorly in isolation. For instance, while individual models pre-trained on other modalities for Clintox failed to outperform the no-pre-training baseline, their multimodal fusion significantly improved performance [16]. This underscores fusion's capability to synergize complementary information across modalities, creating representations more powerful than any single modality could provide.

Implementation Toolkit for Researchers

Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Successful implementation of multimodal fusion requires both computational frameworks and specialized datasets. Below are key resources for researchers developing multimodal materials foundation models.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Tools for Multimodal Fusion

Resource Name	Type/ Category	Function/Purpose	Key Features
MatDeepLearn (MDL) [39]	Computational Framework	Graph-based representation and property prediction	Supports CGCNN, MPNN, MEGNet; open-source Python environment
StarryData2 (SD2) [39]	Experimental Database	Systematic collection of experimental materials data	>40,000 samples from >7,000 papers; thermoelectric properties
Crystal CLIP [37]	Alignment Framework	Cross-modal contrastive learning	Aligns text embeddings with graph embeddings; based on transformer architecture
SCIGEN [6]	Constraint Tool	Geometric constraint integration	Ensures generative models adhere to structural rules; compatible with diffusion models
DiffCSP [6]	Generative Model	Crystal structure prediction	Denoising diffusion for structure generation; can be enhanced with SCIGEN
XMolCap [38]	Multimodal Framework	Molecular captioning with explainability	Integrates images, SMILES, graphs; BioT5 backbone with GIN-MoMu
CSRM617	CSRM617, MF:C112H161N29O28, MW:2361.7 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
BMS-605541	BMS-605541, MF:C19H17F2N5OS, MW:401.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates a generalized workflow for multimodal molecular representation learning, integrating elements from MMFRL [16], Chemeleon [37], and XMolCap [38] frameworks:

Diagram 1: Multimodal Fusion Workflow for Molecular Representation Learning

Cross-Modal Alignment Process

The following diagram details the cross-modal alignment process fundamental to frameworks like Crystal CLIP [37] and MMFRL's relational learning [16]:

Diagram 2: Cross-Modal Alignment via Contrastive Learning

Future Directions and Emerging Capabilities

As multimodal foundation models evolve, several emerging capabilities promise to transform materials discovery and drug development. Cross-modal generalization enables models to perform tasks using different modalities than those available during training, as demonstrated by MMFRL's ability to leverage auxiliary modalities even when unavailable during inference [16]. Emergent reasoning allows models to draw novel insights from fused data streams, potentially identifying structure-property relationships not apparent from any single modality.

The integration of large language models as orchestrators of specialized scientific tools represents another promising direction [5] [40]. Rather than processing all information directly, LLMs can function as controllers that leverage external algorithms for domain-specific tasks like spectral analysis or crystal structure prediction [5]. This approach combines the reasoning capabilities of foundation models with the precision of specialized scientific software.

Future research must address persistent challenges in data quality, model interpretability, and integration of experimental constraints. The development of standardized benchmarks specifically designed for evaluating multimodal fusion in materials science will be crucial for tracking progress. Additionally, techniques for incorporating physical constraints and domain knowledge directly into fusion architectures will enhance the practical utility of these systems for real-world materials discovery and optimization.

Multimodal data fusion represents a paradigm shift in molecular representation learning, enabling foundation models with emergent capabilities that transcend the limitations of single-modality approaches. By strategically integrating textual, structural, and spectral information through architectures like MMFRL [16] and Chemeleon [37], researchers can create more comprehensive, predictive, and explainable molecular representations. The experimental validations and performance metrics presented in this technical guide demonstrate the tangible advantages of multimodal approaches across diverse molecular tasks including property prediction, structure generation, and molecular captioning.

As the field advances, the integration of more sophisticated fusion strategies with increasingly diverse data modalities will unlock new possibilities for inverse design and accelerated discovery. The frameworks, tools, and methodologies outlined here provide researchers with a foundation for implementing and advancing multimodal approaches in their own materials foundation model research, ultimately contributing to more efficient drug discovery and materials development pipelines.

The field of materials science is undergoing a profound transformation driven by the emergence of foundation models and large language model (LLM)-based agents [41]. These technologies have begun to redefine the boundaries of computational creativity, enabling artificial intelligence (AI) systems to perform increasingly complex cognitive tasks that are essential for scientific discovery [42]. Within the context of materials foundation models research, LLM agents represent an emergent capability that addresses critical bottlenecks in the research lifecycle, particularly in the domains of automated literature synthesis and experimental planning.

Scientific research faces persistent obstacles including fragmented workflows, uneven methodological expertise, and cognitive overload that hinder progress [42]. The volume of scientific publications continues to grow exponentially, making comprehensive literature review and data extraction increasingly time-intensive. Agent-Based Auto Research frameworks leverage the capabilities of large language models and modular agent collaboration to automate, coordinate, and optimize the full lifecycle of scientific investigation [42]. This paradigm shift is particularly relevant for materials science, where research challenges span diverse data types and scales, from atomic structures to macroscopic properties [41].

This technical guide examines the architecture, methodologies, and implementation of LLM agents for research automation, with specific focus on synthesizing planning and extracting data from scientific literature. By framing this discussion within the broader context of emergent capabilities in materials foundation models, we aim to provide researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals with practical frameworks for leveraging these advanced AI systems in their own research workflows.

LLM Agent Architecture for Research Automation

Core Components of Research Agents

LLM agents for research automation typically employ a structured architecture comprising several integrated components that enable complex task execution [43]:

• Agent/Brain: A large language model serves as the central coordinator that interprets language, oversees planning, and directs the deployment of external tools [44] [43]. This component is typically activated using prompt templates that define operational parameters and available tools.

• Planning Module: This module decomposes complex research tasks into manageable subtasks through reasoning frameworks such as Chain of Thought (CoT) and Tree of Thoughts (ToT) [43]. More advanced systems incorporate feedback mechanisms through methods like ReAct (Reasoning + Acting), which interleaves reasoning traces and actions in a cyclic manner [43].

• Memory Systems: Research agents employ dual memory systems [43]. Short-term memory maintains context about current tasks within the model's context window, while long-term memory utilizes external vector stores for retaining and recalling past behaviors and research findings over extended periods.

• Tool Integration: Specialized tools enable agents to interact with external environments, including search APIs, code interpreters, mathematical engines, domain-specific databases, and knowledge bases [43]. Frameworks like MRKL and Toolformer facilitate this tool integration [43].

Multi-Agent Systems for Complex Research Workflows

For sophisticated research tasks, multi-agent systems demonstrate superior performance through specialized role distribution and collaborative problem-solving [42] [45]. The Agent-Based Auto Research framework conceptualizes the research pipeline as a sequence of distinct yet interdependent phases, each supported by specialized agents [42]:

• Literature Agents: Automate literature review by synthesizing and analyzing existing research, identifying gaps, and guiding future directions [42].
• Idea Agents: Identify research problems and propose novel solutions by generating new algorithms, models, and techniques [42].
• Method Planner Agents: Break down complex research problems into manageable tasks and generate high-level research plans [42].
• Experiment Agents: Assist in defining experimental setups, generating executable code, and analyzing results [42].

In materials science, systems like MatAgent demonstrate this multi-agent approach, specializing in property prediction, hypothesis generation, experimental data analysis, and materials discovery [41].

Data Extraction from Scientific Literature

Methodologies for Automated Literature Processing

Automating literature reviews typically involves structured workflows consisting of three critical stages [42]:

• Knowledge Retrieval: This initial phase aggregates information from diverse sources including academic publications, preprints, technical reports, and databases. Verification of accuracy and credibility is essential due to the varied reliability of these sources [42].

• Content Synthesis: Retrieved knowledge is systematically organized into structured frameworks tailored to specific research objectives. Named Entity Recognition (NER) plays a crucial role in identifying and categorizing specialized entities such as material names, properties, synthesis parameters, and performance metrics [44].

• Report Generation: Structured insights are converted into accessible formats, producing narratives or structured outputs that align with both human and AI agent usage [42].

Technical Implementation Frameworks

Several technical frameworks facilitate the implementation of LLM agents for data extraction:

• LangChain: An open-source framework that supports development of LLM-powered applications with capabilities for data processing (PDF, HTML, CSV), chaining, and integration with cloud platforms [44].

• LlamaIndex: Specializes in structured data extraction by enabling LLMs to identify important details from unstructured text through schema definition and multi-modal capabilities [44].

• Specialized Extraction Libraries: Tools like Instructor, Marvin, and Guardrails AI focus specifically on structured data extraction capabilities from LLMs, offering different approaches for educational contexts, document processing, and business environments respectively [44].

Evaluation Metrics for Extraction Quality

The performance of LLM agents in data extraction tasks varies significantly based on model selection, embedding strategies, and task complexity. Experimental comparisons reveal important considerations for implementation [46]:

Table 1: Performance Comparison of LLM Models for Data Extraction Tasks

Model	Parameters	Key Strengths	Extraction Challenges
Qwen3	4B	Complex reasoning, strategizing	Smaller versions perform poorly
Gemma3	4B	Hybrid language/reasoning modes	JSON formatting issues with certain embeddings
Llama3.3	70B	Large parameter count	No improvement over smaller models for extraction
BAAI/bge-base-en-v1.5	-	Optimal embedding performance	-

Critical findings from empirical studies include [46]:

• Embedding model selection greatly impacts LLM performance
• Larger models don't always yield improved extraction results
• Model interactions are not always straightforward to predict
• Performance inflection points exist at specific parameter scales (e.g., 4B parameters)

Synthesis Planning and Experimental Design

Autonomous Planning Methodologies

LLM agents enhance their planning capabilities through specialized training approaches. The AgentGen framework demonstrates how environment and task generation can systematically improve planning abilities [47]. Key methodological advances include:

• Bidirectional Evolution (Bi-Evol): This technique evolves planning tasks from easier and harder directions to synthesize a task set with smoother difficulty progression, enhancing the agent's ability to handle complex synthesis planning [47].

• Inspiration Corpus Integration: Using domain-specific text segments as context for synthesizing environments improves diversity and practical applicability of generated plans [47].

In materials science, systems like ChemCrow exemplify this approach, utilizing chemistry-related databases to autonomously plan and execute syntheses of complex materials and compounds [43].

Integration with Foundation Models

The integration of LLM agents with materials foundation models creates powerful synergies for synthesis planning. Foundation models like GNoME (which discovered over 2.2 million new stable materials) and MatterSim provide the fundamental understanding of material properties and behaviors that inform synthesis planning [41]. Specialized LLMs such as nach0 unify natural and chemical language processing to perform tasks like molecule generation, retrosynthesis, and question answering [41].

Table 2: Materials Foundation Models Relevant to Synthesis Planning

Model	Primary Function	Application in Synthesis Planning
GNoME	Materials exploration	Stable materials discovery via active-learning-driven DFT validation
MatterSim	Universal simulation	Zero-shot machine-learned interatomic potential across elements and conditions
MatterGen	Conditional generation	Enables conditional and multi-objective materials generation
nach0	Multimodal reasoning	Unifies natural and chemical language processing for synthesis tasks

Workflow Orchestration

The automated research pipeline follows a structured progression from literature analysis to experimental execution [42]:

• Preliminary Research: Iterative process of literature review, idea generation, and method development
• Empirical Study: Method validation through experimentation with continuous refinement
• Paper Development: Result documentation through writing, self-evaluation, and rebuttal preparation
• Dissemination: Research findings promotion through various channels

This workflow is visualized in the following diagram:

Research Automation Workflow

Experimental Protocols and Validation

Benchmarking Methodologies

Robust evaluation of LLM agents for research automation requires comprehensive benchmarking across multiple dimensions:

• Task-Specific Metrics: For data extraction tasks, evaluation should include accuracy of entity recognition, schema compliance, and handling of complex document structures [46]. For synthesis planning, success rates, feasibility assessment, and novelty of proposed approaches should be measured.

• Human-AI Collaboration Metrics: As highlighted in studies of mental well-being support agents, it's crucial to evaluate not just performance but also potential for generating harmful content or inappropriate recommendations [43].

• Scalability Assessment: Performance should be evaluated across varying dataset sizes and complexity levels to determine practical limitations and optimization requirements.

Case Study: Materials Discovery Pipeline

A comprehensive experimental protocol for validating LLM agents in materials discovery involves these key reagent solutions and their functions:

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Materials Discovery Validation

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function in Validation
Foundation Models	GNoME, MatterSim, nach0, ChemDFM	Provide baseline materials knowledge and prediction capabilities
LLM Architectures	GPT-series, Llama-series, Gemma, Qwen	Serve as core reasoning engines for different agent components
Embedding Models	BAAI/bge-base-en-v1.5, nomic-embed-text	Convert text to vectors for knowledge retrieval tasks
Evaluation Benchmarks	MatBench, OCELOT, COLB	Standardized assessment of prediction accuracy and planning quality
Development Frameworks	LangChain, LlamaIndex, AutoGen	Enable agent construction, tool integration, and multi-agent coordination

The experimental workflow for validating LLM agents in materials research follows a structured protocol:

Materials Research Validation Protocol

Implementation Toolkit

Frameworks and Infrastructure

Several specialized tools and frameworks support the development and deployment of LLM agents for research automation:

• Open MatSci ML Toolkit: Designed for standardizing graph-based materials learning workflows [41].
• FORGE: Provides scalable pretraining utilities across scientific domains [41].
• AutoGen: Enables development of multi-agent applications with customizable agent behaviors and conversation patterns [43].
• Haystack: An end-to-end NLP framework that facilitates building applications capable of extracting information from documents effectively [44].

Security and Governance Considerations

As with any AI system, LLM agents introduce potential vulnerabilities that must be addressed:

• Prompt Injection Protection: Systems must implement safeguards against prompt injection attacks, which can manipulate LLM operations and lead to unauthorized actions or data leakage [48]. Contrast Security offers specialized solutions for identifying these vulnerabilities [48].

• Governance Frameworks: Automated systems should maintain audit logs of agent decisions, particularly for synthesis planning and experimental design where regulatory compliance may be required [45].

Future Directions and Challenges

The development of LLM agents for research automation faces several persistent challenges, including data imbalance, limited multimodal fusion, safety concerns, and generalizability issues [41]. Future research directions center on scalable pretraining, continual learning, data governance, and trustworthiness [41].

In legal domains, research indicates future directions including enhancing single-agent trustworthiness through explainability, boosting multi-agent efficiency with collaborative AI techniques, enabling cross-jurisdictional interoperability via legal knowledge graphs, and establishing ethical governance with quantifiable metrics [45]. Similar trajectories are emerging for materials science applications.

As foundation models continue to evolve in materials science, the integration of LLM agents promises to create increasingly sophisticated research automation systems that can significantly accelerate the pace of scientific discovery while ensuring rigorous methodology and comprehensive literature synthesis.

The discovery of advanced materials for sustainability applications represents one of the most pressing challenges in modern materials science. This case study examines how foundation models with emergent capabilities are revolutionizing the search for safer battery materials and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) replacements. By leveraging generative AI, property prediction, and multi-scale modeling, these systems enable researchers to navigate vast chemical spaces with unprecedented efficiency and precision, moving beyond traditional trial-and-error approaches toward targeted, inverse design [5] [49] [50].

Foundation models are AI systems trained on broad data using self-supervision at scale that can be adapted to wide-ranging downstream tasks [5]. In materials science, these models have demonstrated emergent capabilities—properties not explicitly programmed but arising from model scale and complexity—that make them particularly valuable for materials discovery. Unlike traditional machine learning approaches that require task-specific engineering, foundation models offer cross-domain generalization and can handle diverse data types and scales inherent to materials research [4].

The challenge of identifying replacement materials represents an ideal application domain for these emergent capabilities. For battery materials, the chemical space of potential compounds is estimated at 10^60 possibilities, while PFAS replacements require navigating complex toxicity, stability, and performance constraints [50] [51]. Foundation models trained on first-principles physics and chemistry data can simulate molecular interactions and properties, generating highly accurate synthetic data to fill knowledge gaps and enhance discovery pipelines [51].

Foundation Models: Architectures and Emergent Capabilities

Model Architectures for Materials Discovery

Materials foundation models employ varied architectural approaches adapted from natural language processing and computer vision:

• Encoder-only models (e.g., BERT-based architectures) focus on understanding and representing input data, generating meaningful representations for property prediction tasks [5] [52].
• Decoder-only models are designed for generative tasks, predicting and producing structures token-by-token based on given inputs [5].
• Diffusion models (e.g., MatterGen) operate on 3D geometry by progressively adjusting positions, elements, and periodic lattices from random noise to coherent structures [49].
• Multimodal architectures integrate textual, structural, and visual information to construct comprehensive materials representations [5] [4].

These architectures demonstrate emergent capabilities including cross-property transfer learning, few-shot adaptation to novel material classes, and creative generation beyond training distribution [4].

Emergent Capabilities in Practice

The transition from specialized models to general-purpose foundation models has unlocked several emergent capabilities:

• Cross-domain generalization: Models trained on broad materials data can predict properties outside their explicit training distribution [5] [4].
• Conditional generation: Models like MatterGen can directly generate novel materials conditioned on desired chemistry, mechanical, electronic, or magnetic properties [49].
• Multi-property optimization: Simultaneous optimization of multiple, sometimes competing properties (e.g., conductivity vs. stability) without significant performance degradation [49] [6].
• Physical reasoning: Incorporation of physical principles and constraints during generation, as demonstrated by SCIGEN's ability to enforce geometric constraints associated with quantum properties [6].

Table 1: Foundation Model Capabilities for Materials Discovery

Capability	Traditional AI	Foundation Models	Impact on Materials Discovery
Data Efficiency	Required ~10,000 labeled examples per property	Few-shot or zero-shot adaptation possible	Reduces data requirements by orders of magnitude
Property Prediction	Separate models for each property	Unified multi-property prediction	Enables complex trade-off analysis
Chemical Space Exploration	Limited to local optimization around known materials	Global exploration of unknown chemical space	Discovers structurally novel candidates
Constraint Satisfaction	Post-hoc filtering of generated materials	Built-in constraint adherence during generation	Higher yield of viable candidates
IC87201	IC87201, MF:C13H10Cl2N4O, MW:309.15 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
Malacidin B	Malacidin B, MF:C57H90N12O20, MW:1263.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Case Study: Safer Battery Materials

The Battery Materials Challenge

Conventional lithium-ion batteries face significant challenges including flammable electrolytes, limited energy density, and dependence on scarce or environmentally problematic materials like cobalt. Next-generation batteries require materials that simultaneously satisfy multiple constraints: high ionic conductivity, electrochemical stability, low cost, and minimal environmental impact [50] [51].

The complexity of this design space stems from intricate structure-property relationships where minute atomic-level variations can dramatically impact macroscopic performance—a phenomenon known as an "activity cliff" in the cheminformatics community [5].

Foundation Models in Action

Researchers at the University of Michigan and Argonne National Laboratory have developed foundation models specifically targeting battery materials discovery. These models are trained on billions of known molecules using SMILES (Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry System) representations and their specialized derivative SMIRK, which improves structural processing precision [50].

The team employed ALCF's Polaris and Aurora supercomputers to train models focused on two key components:

• Electrolytes: Small molecules that carry electrical charge
• Electrodes: Molecular crystals that store and release energy [50]

These foundation models unified previously separate property prediction capabilities and outperformed single-property models developed over several years [50].

Table 2: Quantitative Performance of Battery Materials Foundation Models

Metric	Traditional Screening	AI Foundation Models	Improvement Factor
Candidates Evaluated	~10^6-10^9 compounds	>10^60 chemical space accessible	>10^50 increase in search space
Prediction Accuracy	DFT: ~90% but computationally expensive	>85% across multiple properties	35x more accurate than empirical methods
Discovery Timeline	5-10 years for new materials	Months to 2 years for validated candidates	3-5x acceleration
Cycle Life Prediction	Required months of testing	95% reduction in testing time	35x greater accuracy with 50x less data

MatterGen: Generative Design for Batteries

Microsoft's MatterGen represents a paradigm shift from screening-based approaches to generative materials design. This diffusion model operates on 3D geometry of materials, generating novel structures by adjusting positions, elements, and periodic lattices from random initialization [49].

Key advancements in MatterGen include:

• Specialized architecture handling periodicity and 3D geometry inherent to materials
• Training on 608,000 stable materials from Materials Project and Alexandria databases
• Conditional generation for target properties including chemistry, symmetry, electronic, magnetic, and mechanical constraints [49]

In experimental validation, MatterGen-designed TaCr₂O₆ was synthesized with a measured bulk modulus of 169 GPa compared to the target 200 GPa—a relative error below 20% that is considered remarkably close from an experimental perspective [49].

Case Study: PFAS Replacements

The PFAS Challenge

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) present a critical environmental and health challenge due to their persistence, bioaccumulation potential, and toxicity. Replacing these "forever chemicals" requires identifying alternatives that maintain performance while reducing environmental impact [51].

The molecular complexity of PFAS arises from strong carbon-fluorine bonds that confer both desired stability (for applications) and problematic persistence (in the environment). Identifying replacements requires navigating trade-offs between performance, synthesizability, and environmental impact.

Large Quantitative Models for PFAS Discovery

Large Quantitative Models (LQMs) trained on first-principles data of physics and chemistry have emerged as powerful tools for PFAS replacement discovery. These models simulate chemical interactions and molecular properties, enabling researchers to create vast datasets that accurately predict and evaluate material performance [51].

LQMs address the PFAS challenge through:

• Virtual screening of billions of chemical structures for alternatives with reduced environmental impact
• Property prediction for toxicity, biodegradability, and performance metrics
• Synthetic data generation to fill knowledge gaps where experimental data is scarce [51]

Industry applications demonstrate LQMs' ability to efficiently develop scalable and sustainable replacements for PFAS used in various components, including battery materials [51].

Experimental Protocols and Validation

Integrated AI-Driven Workflow

The experimental pipeline for validating AI-discovered materials follows a structured approach:

• Generative Design: Models like MatterGen or SCIGEN generate candidate structures conditioned on target properties [49] [6].
• Stability Screening: Candidates are filtered based on thermodynamic and kinetic stability predictions.
• Property Validation: Detailed simulations (DFT, MD) predict functional properties.
• Synthesis Planning: AI models suggest viable synthesis routes.
• Experimental Characterization: Successful candidates are synthesized and characterized.

AI-Driven Materials Discovery Workflow

MatterGen Experimental Protocol

For battery materials discovery using MatterGen, the experimental protocol involves:

Generation Phase:

• Initialize model with design constraints (e.g., bulk modulus >200 GPa, specific chemistry)
• Generate candidate structures via diffusion process with property conditioning
• Apply structural constraints using algorithms that consider compositional disorder

Validation Phase:

• Computational Screening:
  • Perform DFT calculations for formation energy and thermodynamic stability
  • Calculate phonon spectra to confirm dynamic stability
  • Predict electronic structure properties (band gap, density of states)
• Experimental Synthesis:
  • Solid-state reaction synthesis based on AI-suggested precursors
  • Structural characterization via X-ray diffraction
  • Property measurement (e.g., bulk modulus via nanoindentation)

This protocol successfully identified and validated novel materials like TaCr₂O₆ with properties closely matching design specifications [49].

SCIGEN Constrained Generation Protocol

The SCIGEN approach for generating materials with specific geometric constraints follows:

Constraint Implementation:

• Define target geometric patterns (e.g., Kagome, Lieb, or Archimedean lattices)
• Integrate constraints into diffusion models via rejection sampling at each generation step
• Generate candidates adhering to both geometric constraints and stability requirements

Validation for Quantum Materials:

• Generate over 10 million candidate materials with Archimedean lattices
• Screen for stability, reducing to ~1 million candidates
• Detailed simulation of 26,000 materials for magnetic properties
• Synthesis of top candidates (e.g., TiPdBi and TiPbSb)
• Experimental verification of predicted magnetic properties [6]

This approach demonstrated magnetism in 41% of simulated structures, leading to successful synthesis of previously undiscovered compounds [6].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Resources for AI-Driven Materials Discovery

Resource/Tool	Function	Application Examples
MatterGen	Generative materials design	Direct generation of novel battery materials with target properties [49]
SMILES/SMIRK	Molecular representation	Encoding molecular structures for foundation model training [50]
SCIGEN	Constrained generation	Creating materials with specific geometric lattices for quantum applications [6]
LQMs (Large Quantitative Models)	Property prediction	Predicting toxicity, degradation, and performance for PFAS replacements [51]
DiffCSP	Crystal structure prediction	Generating stable crystal structures for inorganic materials [6]
ALCF Supercomputers	Training infrastructure	Scaling foundation models to billions of molecules [50]
PB49673382	PB49673382, MF:C26H23ClN6O5S2, MW:599.1 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Multi-Scale Validation Framework

Multi-Scale Materials Validation Framework

Foundation models with emergent capabilities are fundamentally transforming materials discovery for sustainability applications. For battery materials and PFAS replacements, these AI systems enable researchers to navigate vast chemical spaces with precision and efficiency unmatched by traditional methods. The integration of generative design, property prediction, and multi-scale validation creates a powerful pipeline for addressing critical materials challenges.

The future of foundation models in materials science points toward increased multimodality, tighter integration with autonomous experimentation, and enhanced physical reasoning capabilities. As these models continue to evolve, they promise to accelerate the discovery of safer, more sustainable materials essential for addressing global environmental and technological challenges.

Navigating Challenges: Data Limitations, Model Reliability, and Optimization Strategies

The emergence of sophisticated foundation models in materials science and drug discovery is fundamentally constrained by a pervasive data bottleneck. This whitepaper examines the core challenges of data scarcity, quality variability, class imbalance, and the critical phenomenon of activity cliffs that limit model generalizability and predictive power. We present a technical analysis of current methodologies—including synthetic data generation, novel architectural innovations, and specialized learning paradigms—that aim to overcome these limitations. By integrating quantitative benchmarking and detailed experimental protocols, this guide provides researchers with a framework for developing more robust, data-efficient foundation models capable of navigating the complex landscape of chemical and materials space.

Foundation models, defined as models "trained on broad data (generally using self-supervision at scale) that can be adapted to a wide range of downstream tasks," are revolutionizing materials discovery [5]. Their performance hinges on the availability of significant volumes of high-quality data, a principle that is particularly critical in materials science where minute structural details can profoundly influence properties—a phenomenon known as an "activity cliff" [5]. For instance, in high-temperature cuprate superconductors, critical temperature (Tc) can be dramatically affected by subtle variations in hole-doping levels. Models trained on insufficient or non-representative data may completely miss these effects, potentially leading research down non-productive avenues [5].

The data bottleneck manifests in multiple dimensions: (1) Scarcity and Bias: The Protein Data Bank (PDB) offers orders of magnitude less data than domains like text or images, and this corpus is skewed toward certain targets and chemotypes due to varying experimental difficulty and scientific interest [53]. (2) Quality and Heterogeneity: Source documents often contain noisy, incomplete, or inconsistent information, while chemical databases face limitations in scope, accessibility, and licensing restrictions [5]. (3) Imbalance and Activity Cliffs: The underrepresentation of critical regions in chemical space, particularly activity cliffs where small structural changes yield significant activity shifts, leads to models that fail to capture essential structure-activity relationships (SAR) [54].

The Nature of the Bottleneck: Quantitative Dimensions

Data Scarcity and Quality Concerns

The foundation model paradigm separates data-hungry representation learning from target-specific fine-tuning, but this approach falters when base datasets are limited or biased. As shown in Table 1, the scale of available data for materials discovery lags significantly behind other domains, creating fundamental constraints on model development.

Table 1: Characterizing Data Availability Across Domains

Domain	Representative Dataset	Scale	Primary Limitations
Natural Language	Common Crawl	Trillions of tokens	Quality filtering, multilingual representation
General Images	LAION-5B	5.85B image-text pairs	Copyright, aesthetic bias, caption accuracy
Molecular Structures (2D)	PubChem, ZINC, ChEMBL	~10^9 compounds [5]	2D representation bias, licensing restrictions
3D Biomolecular Structures	Protein Data Bank (PDB)	~200,000 structures [53]	Experimental determination cost, target bias
Experimental Materials Properties	Various specialized databases	Highly variable (~10^3-10^6)	Sparse measurement, systematic error, provenance

Data quality issues are particularly acute in scientific domains. Traditional data-extraction approaches primarily focus on text in documents, but in materials science, significant information is embedded in tables, images, and molecular structures [5]. For example, in patent documents, some molecules are selected for their importance and represented by images, while the text can contain irrelevant structures. Inconsistencies in naming conventions, ambiguous property descriptions, or poor-quality images can hinder accurate extraction and association of materials data [5].

The Activity Cliff Challenge

Activity cliffs present a particularly difficult challenge for predictive modeling. These phenomena occur when minimal structural changes between similar compounds result in dramatic differences in biological activity or material properties [54]. Conventional machine learning models, including quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models, often fail to accurately predict these discontinuities because they tend to generate analogous predictions for structurally similar molecules [54].

Research has shown that prediction performance of descriptor-based, graph-based, and sequence-based ML methods significantly deteriorates when dealing with activity cliff molecules [54]. Neither enlarging the training set size nor increasing model complexity reliably improves predictive accuracy for these challenging compounds, and existing QSAR models exhibit low sensitivity toward activity cliffs [54]. This limitation has profound implications for drug discovery, where understanding these discontinuities in structure-activity relationships (SAR) is crucial for designing molecules with enhanced efficacy [54].

Table 2: Model Performance on Activity Cliff Prediction

Model Type	Representative Examples	Activity Cliff Performance	Key Limitations
Traditional QSAR	Random Forest, SVM	Significant performance deterioration [54]	Assumes smooth SAR landscapes
Graph Neural Networks	Chemprop, GIN	Struggles with cliffs without explicit modeling [54]	Limited by training data distribution
Foundation Models	CheMeleon, MolFormer	Mixed results (see CheMeleon struggles [55])	Dependent on pre-training strategy
Specialized Architectures	ACARL (proposed)	Superior performance demonstrated [54]	Requires specific contrastive loss design

Methodological Solutions: Overcoming Data Limitations

Synthetic Data Generation and Augmentation

To address data scarcity, researchers are increasingly turning to synthetic data generation. The Pearl foundation model for protein-ligand cofolding employs large-scale synthetic data to overcome the limitations of experimentally determined structures [53]. Their approach demonstrates clear evidence of model performance scaling with synthetic dataset size, establishing a new state-of-the-art with 85.2% and 84.7% success rates for generating accurate and physically valid poses on Runs N' Poses and PoseBusters benchmarks, respectively [53].

Data augmentation strategies have also proven effective. One framework for the dairy financial domain introduces a two-stage data augmentation strategy: the first stage uses ChatGPT to generate pseudo-samples for rare types, and the second stage refines model weaknesses based on prediction-guided feedback [56]. These augmented datasets are used to fine-tune the model through prompt-based supervised learning with LoRA, demonstrating the value of targeted augmentation for addressing data imbalance [56].

Architectural Innovations for Data Efficiency

Novel model architectures are being developed specifically to maximize learning from limited data. The Adaptive Depth Message Passing GNN (ADMP-GNN) addresses the limitation of using a fixed number of message-passing steps for all nodes by dynamically adjusting the number of message passing layers for each node, resulting in improved performance without requiring additional training data [56].

The EvenOddML model for bipartite graphs employs a novel three-level contrastive learning framework (Layer Level, Type-Global Level, and Network-Global Level) that hierarchically maximizes mutual information by integrating local and global information at various scales [56]. This approach demonstrates how architectural choices can more efficiently utilize available data.

Specialized Learning Paradigms

Activity Cliff-Aware Reinforcement Learning (ACARL) represents a specialized approach that explicitly addresses the activity cliff challenge. The framework incorporates a novel Activity Cliff Index (ACI) to identify and amplify activity cliff compounds, uniquely incorporating them into the reinforcement learning process through a tailored contrastive loss [54]. This approach shifts model optimization toward high-impact regions within the SAR landscape, improving the generation of molecules with targeted properties.

Quantization Aware Matryoshka Adaptation (QAMA) creates compact yet semantically rich embeddings through Matryoshka Representation Learning and multi-level quantization [56]. This approach learns nested embeddings that gracefully shrink to smaller dimensional subsets and leverages bitwise operations for efficient retrieval, demonstrating how specialized learning techniques can improve data efficiency.

Diagram Title: ACARL Framework for Activity Cliff-Aware Molecular Design

Experimental Protocols and Benchmarking

Implementing Activity Cliff-Aware Reinforcement Learning

The ACARL framework implements a systematic methodology for incorporating activity cliffs into molecular design [54]:

• Activity Cliff Identification: Calculate the Activity Cliff Index (ACI) for molecular pairs using structural similarity (Tanimoto similarity based on molecular fingerprints) and biological activity differences (pKi values). Pairs exceeding a defined ACI threshold are classified as activity cliffs.

• Transformer Decoder Pretraining: Initialize a transformer-based molecular generator using masked language modeling on SMILES strings from a large chemical database (e.g., ChEMBL).

• Reinforcement Learning Fine-Tuning:

  • Environment: Molecular scoring function (e.g., docking score)
  • Agent: Pretrained transformer decoder
  • Actions: Generation of next token in SMILES sequence
  • Reward: Combination of primary objective (e.g., docking score) and contrastive loss that prioritizes activity cliff compounds

• Contrastive Loss Implementation: The contrastive loss function emphasizes molecules with substantial SAR discontinuities by comparing the reward signals between activity cliff molecules and their similar but less active counterparts.

Experimental evaluations across multiple protein targets demonstrate ACARL's superior performance in generating high-affinity molecules compared to existing state-of-the-art algorithms [54].

Foundation Model Pretraining with Molecular Descriptors

The CheMeleon model employs a descriptor-based pretraining approach to overcome data limitations [55]:

• Descriptor Calculation: Compute ~1,800 molecular descriptors using the Mordred package for millions of compounds from PubChem.

• Model Architecture: Implement a Directed Message-Passing Neural Network (D-MPNN) with 6 hidden layers of dimension 2048, followed by a three-layer feedforward network of the same size.

• Pretraining Objective: Train the model to predict all calculated Mordred descriptors simultaneously using mean squared error loss.

• Fine-Tuning: Adapt the pretrained model to specific property prediction tasks by replacing the output layer and training with task-specific data.

This approach achieves a win rate of 79% on Polaris tasks, outperforming baselines like Random Forest (46%), fastprop (39%), and Chemprop (36%), and a 97% win rate on MoleculeACE assays [55].

Synthetic Data Generation for Protein-Ligand Cofolding

The Pearl foundation model addresses data scarcity through large-scale synthetic data generation [53]:

• Data Curation: Combine experimental structures from the PDB with synthetically generated protein-ligand complexes.

• Architecture Design: Implement an SO(3)-equivariant diffusion module to inherently respect 3D rotational symmetries, improving generalization and sample efficiency.

• Curriculum Training: Employ progressive training strategies that expose the model to increasingly complex structural prediction tasks.

• Multi-Chain Templating: Incorporate a flexible conditioning mechanism that allows leveraging auxiliary structural information about target proteins, cofactors, and related ligands during inference.

This approach establishes new state-of-the-art performance, with Pearl achieving 14.5% and 14.2% improvements over the next best model on public Runs N' Poses and PoseBusters benchmarks, respectively [53].

Diagram Title: Synthetic Data Pipeline for Structural Prediction

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Tool/Reagent	Function	Application Context
Mordred Descriptors	Calculates 1,800+ molecular descriptors directly from molecular structure	Pretraining foundation models (CheMeleon) [55]
Activity Cliff Index (ACI)	Quantifies SAR discontinuities by combining structural similarity and activity differences	Identifying critical regions for model attention (ACARL) [54]
SO(3)-Equivariant Diffusion	Generative module respecting 3D rotational symmetries	Protein-ligand cofolding (Pearl) [53]
Matryoshka Representation Learning	Learns nested embeddings scalable to different dimensions	Efficient retrieval and compression (QAMA) [56]
Multi-Chain Templating System	Conditions inference on auxiliary structural information	Incorporating domain knowledge (Pearl) [53]
Contrastive Loss Framework	Maximizes mutual information across multiple scales	Integrating local and global information (EvenOddML) [56]

The data bottleneck in materials foundation models presents multifaceted challenges spanning quality, quantity, and distributional concerns. As this technical guide has detailed, solutions are emerging through integrated approaches combining synthetic data generation, specialized architectures, and novel learning paradigms. The critical phenomenon of activity cliffs necessitates explicit modeling, as demonstrated by approaches like ACARL that actively prioritize these discontinuities during training.

Future progress will likely depend on several key developments: (1) Improved cross-modal data extraction techniques that can more effectively leverage the scientific literature; (2) Advanced synthetic data generation that accurately captures complex physical constraints; and (3) More sophisticated learning objectives that explicitly target under-represented regions of chemical space. As these methodologies mature, they promise to unlock new emergent capabilities in materials foundation models, ultimately accelerating the discovery of novel materials and therapeutics.

The integration of human expertise remains crucial, particularly through frameworks like reinforcement learning with human feedback (RLHF), which can help guide models toward therapeutically aligned molecules, just as RLHF played a pivotal role in training large language models like ChatGPT [57]. By combining data-driven approaches with domain knowledge, the field can overcome current bottlenecks and realize the full potential of foundation models in materials science and drug discovery.

In materials science and drug development, the choice between two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) representation constitutes a critical methodological crossroads with profound implications for research outcomes. The "2D vs. 3D representation problem" refers to the systematic loss of structural information that occurs when complex three-dimensional systems are reduced to two-dimensional representations for analysis. This information loss directly impacts the predictive accuracy of structure-property relationships—the fundamental linkages that enable targeted materials design and therapeutic development [58]. Within emerging materials foundation model research, this dimensionality challenge presents both a significant obstacle and a compelling opportunity for innovation. Foundation models, pretrained on broad data and fine-tuned for specific tasks, demonstrate remarkable emergent capabilities in overcoming dimensional limitations by learning latent representations that capture essential 3D structural information from limited 2D data [4] [59] [60].

The core issue stems from a fundamental mathematical reality: projecting 3D structures onto 2 planes inevitably discards information. In materials characterization, this manifests as an inability to fully quantify critical microstructural features such as grain size distributions in polycrystalline materials, void architectures in porous polymers, or micellar arrangements in complex solutions when relying solely on 2D imaging techniques [58]. Similarly, in drug development, 3D molecular conformation determines biological activity, yet many screening methods initially rely on 2D representations. This information loss creates significant bottlenecks in discovery pipelines, leading to inaccurate predictions, suboptimal material performance, and extended development timelines.

Fundamental Differences Between 2D and 3D Representations

Core Conceptual Distinctions

The divergence between 2D and 3D representation extends beyond mere dimensionality to encompass fundamental differences in information content, interpretive requirements, and application suitability. Two-dimensional representations provide flat, planar views of objects, typically requiring multiple orthogonal projections (top, front, side) to convey basic geometrical information [61] [62]. These representations excel at communicating precise dimensional data and tolerances through standardized drafting conventions but demand significant cognitive effort for mental reconstruction of the complete 3D object. In contrast, 3D representations offer holistic, volumetric models that maintain spatial relationships between components, enabling intuitive visualization and interrogation from any perspective [61] [63].

The distinction carries particular significance in computational contexts. Where 2D computer-aided design (CAD) primarily involves drafting within a single plane, 3D CAD modeling creates parametric solid models that embed intelligence about features, relationships, and physical properties [61] [62]. This fundamental difference manifests throughout the research and development lifecycle, from initial design through manufacturing and validation. While 2D representations remain sufficient for conveying basic schematics or well-defined components, 3D representations become indispensable for complex geometries, assembly analysis, and computational simulations that predict real-world behavior [62] [63].

Quantitative Comparison of Capabilities

Table 1: Systematic Comparison of 2D and 3D Representation Characteristics

Feature	2D Representations	3D Representations
Dimensionality	Planar, flat views	Holistic, volumetric, multi-dimensional
Information Content	Limited to X-Y coordinates with annotations	Comprehensive X-Y-Z spatial data with material properties
Interpretive Requirements	Requires specialized knowledge and mental reconstruction	Intuitive, easily visualized by diverse stakeholders
Design Process	Linear, sequential with manual view coordination	Dynamic, associative with automatic view synchronization
Analysis Capabilities	Basic dimensional measurement	Advanced simulation (stress, thermal, fluid dynamics)
Manufacturing Integration	Requires interpretation for CNC programming	Direct export to CAM systems for automated processing
Data Sources	Manual drafting or 2D scanning	3D scanning, tomography, molecular dynamics simulations
Ideal Applications	Simple components, electrical schematics, architectural layouts	Complex products, high-precision parts, biological molecules

The comparative analysis reveals that 3D representations provide superior information density and utility for complex systems, particularly when understanding spatial relationships is critical to function. However, this enhanced capability comes with computational costs and data management requirements that may be unnecessary for simpler applications [61] [62] [63].

Consequences of Structural Information Loss in Materials Research

Microstructural Characterization Limitations

The structural information loss inherent in 2D representation creates particularly severe consequences in materials microstructure analysis. Most industry-standard grain identification methods, including ASTM protocols, were developed for 2D data and rely on techniques such as planimetric and intercept methods [58]. While these approaches can achieve high accuracy (±0.25 grain size units) for uniform distributions, they become severely impaired when grain-size distributions are non-uniform or when intersection criteria for distinguishing grains are poorly chosen [58]. The conventional practice of collating 2D slice information to derive 3D microstructural information proves both inefficient and prone to information loss, potentially misrepresenting critical features that impact material properties.

The limitations of 2D characterization become particularly problematic when investigating structure-property relationships governed by 3D morphological features. For polycrystalline materials, features such as grain size distribution directly influence mechanical properties through established relationships like the Hall-Petch equation, which correlates decreasing grain size with increasing material strength [58]. However, research has demonstrated that for a given average grain size, broadening of the grain size dispersion reduces material strength—a 3D phenomenon that 2D characterization often fails to capture accurately [58]. Similar limitations affect characterization of porous materials, where void connectivity and tortuosity dictate transport properties, and complex fluids, where micellar organization determines rheological behavior.

Economic and Temporal Impacts

Beyond technical limitations, the structural information loss in 2D representation carries significant economic consequences. While 2D approaches may offer lower initial software costs and faster startup times for simple projects, they frequently incur substantial downstream expenses through misinterpretation, rework, and physical prototyping [61] [62]. The requirement for mental reconstruction of 3D objects from 2D drawings introduces interpretation errors that may only manifest during manufacturing or experimental validation, necessitating costly iterations.

In contrast, 3D representation enables early detection of design conflicts and performance issues through digital simulation, reducing physical prototyping needs. Studies demonstrate that 3D modeling with integrated analysis tools can identify up to 90% of design conflicts before manufacturing begins, significantly reducing development costs and timeline disruptions [61] [63]. For research institutions and pharmaceutical companies, these efficiencies translate into accelerated discovery timelines and reduced laboratory resource consumption.

Traditional Approaches to 3D Reconstruction and Their Limitations

Serial Sectioning and Stereology

Traditional approaches to addressing the 2D-3D representation gap have primarily relied on physical and mathematical techniques for 3D reconstruction. Serial sectioning represents a fundamental methodology involving sequential imaging of physically sectioned specimens, with digital reconstruction of 3D structure through image alignment and stacking [58]. This approach provides ground-truth 3D data but proves destructive, time-consuming, and limited in volumetric scope. Additionally, the physical sectioning process may introduce artifacts that distort microstructural analysis.

Stereological techniques offer a mathematical alternative, employing statistical methods to infer 3D characteristics from 2D sections through geometric probability theory. These methods include manual approaches such as the intercept method for grain size measurement and automated techniques based on quantitative image analysis [58]. While stereology avoids specimen destruction, it relies heavily on assumptions about microstructure uniformity and may introduce significant errors when these assumptions are violated in real-world materials with heterogeneous features.

Tomographic Techniques

Advanced tomographic techniques represent a significant improvement over traditional serial sectioning, enabling non-destructive 3D characterization through various physical principles. X-ray computed tomography (XCT) reconstructs 3D structure from multiple radiographic projections, while electron tomography achieves nanometer-scale resolution using transmission electron microscopy [58]. For polycrystalline materials, diffraction-based techniques such as diffraction contrast tomography (DCT) and high-energy diffraction microscopy (HEDM) enable 3D mapping of crystal orientation and strain states [58].

Despite their capabilities, tomographic approaches present practical limitations for widespread adoption. The equipment requirements prove substantial, particularly for techniques requiring synchrotron radiation sources. Data acquisition and processing times remain lengthy, limiting throughput for statistical characterization. Additionally, resolution constraints often force a trade-off between field of view and feature detection, potentially missing critical nanoscale features while capturing millimeter-scale structures.

Table 2: Comparison of Traditional 3D Characterization Techniques

Technique	Resolution	Field of View	Key Limitations
Serial Sectioning	Nanometer to micrometer	Limited by sectioning capability	Destructive, artifact-prone, labor-intensive
Stereology	Determined by 2D image	Essentially unlimited	Statistical assumptions, accuracy limitations
X-ray Tomography	Micrometer to millimeter	Millimeter to centimeter	Limited contrast for similar phases, equipment cost
Electron Tomography	Nanometer	Micrometer	Sample thickness constraints, lengthy acquisition
Diffraction Tomography	Micrometer	Millimeter	Requires synchrotron access, complex analysis

Foundation Models and Emergent Capabilities in Overcoming Dimensionality Limitations

Multimodal Learning for Materials Science

The emergence of foundation models in materials science represents a paradigm shift in addressing the 2D-3D representation problem. These models, pre-trained on extensive multimodal datasets, demonstrate remarkable emergent capabilities—properties not explicitly programmed but arising from model scale and architecture [4] [59]. The MultiMat framework exemplifies this approach, leveraging contrastive learning to create shared representations across diverse material data types, including crystal structures, property measurements, and synthesis protocols [59]. This multimodal pre-training enables the model to develop a conceptual understanding of materials that transcends individual representations.

These foundation models exhibit particularly powerful emergent capabilities in cross-modal inference—predicting 3D properties from 2D representations by learning the fundamental relationships between structure and function [59] [60]. For example, models trained on both experimental characterization data and computational simulations can infer 3D microstructural parameters from 2D micrographs by recognizing latent patterns that correlate with 3D features. This capability dramatically accelerates materials characterization, potentially reducing the dependence on resource-intensive 3D techniques for routine analysis while maintaining predictive accuracy.

The ME-AI Framework: Encoding Expert Intuition

The Materials Expert-Artificial Intelligence (ME-AI) framework represents a groundbreaking approach to embedding human expertise within machine learning systems [60]. This methodology translates the intuitive knowledge of materials scientists—honed through years of hands-on experimentation—into quantitative descriptors extracted from curated, measurement-based data. In one compelling demonstration, researchers applied ME-AI to a set of 879 square-net compounds described using 12 experimental features, training a Dirichlet-based Gaussian-process model with a chemistry-aware kernel [60].

Remarkably, the ME-AI framework not only reproduced established expert rules for identifying topological semimetals but also discovered new descriptive features, including one aligned with classical chemical concepts of hypervalency and the Zintl line [60]. Most significantly, a model trained exclusively on square-net topological semimetal data correctly classified topological insulators in rocksalt structures, demonstrating unexpected transferability across material classes [60]. This emergent generalization capability suggests that foundation models can develop fundamental understanding of materials principles that transcend their immediate training data, potentially addressing the 2D-3D representation gap through conceptual learning rather than pattern matching alone.

Experimental Protocols for 2D-to-3D Reconstruction in Materials Research

Machine Learning-Enabled Microstructural Characterization

A robust unsupervised machine learning protocol for 3D microstructural characterization from 2D data involves three sequential processes, each with specific methodological requirements [58]:

Process 1: Preconditioning and Topological Classification

• Begin with distinguishing microstructures (e.g., grains) from their boundaries using local structure identification via topological classifiers
• For atomistic polycrystalline systems, implement Common Neighbor Analysis (CNA) for fcc, bcc, and hcp structure types (requiring topological information to 1st nearest neighbors)
• Apply extended CNA for diamond (hexagonal/cubic) structure types (requiring topological information to 2nd nearest neighbors)
• Perform voxelization on labeled crystalline atoms/beads to enable efficient data preconditioning using standard image processing techniques
• Apply preconditioning procedures (image filters such as uniform blur, local variance) and thresholding on voxelized data or experimental images to identify microstructure boundaries

Process 2: Unsupervised Machine Learning Implementation

• Execute microstructural analysis through clustering of preconditioned voxels using density-based algorithms (e.g., DBSCAN)
• Cluster voxels of similar local structure labels to estimate number of clusters and their volumes for size distribution quantification
• Assign unique cluster labels to individual microstructures for visualization purposes
• Validate clustering approach against diverse synthetic data samples representing nanocrystalline metals, polymers, and complex fluids

Process 3: Refinement and Back-Mapping

• Implement refinement protocols to correct clustering artifacts and boundary inaccuracies
• Apply back-mapping procedures to translate cluster labels back to original atomic coordinates or experimental reference frames
• Quantify reconstruction accuracy through comparison with ground-truth synthetic data and experimentally published characterization data
• Execute computational efficiency optimization for practical application to large-scale datasets

This automated technique has demonstrated insensitivity to extended defect structures such as stacking faults and semi-amorphous domains that typically stymie standard classification methods [58]. The approach provides unbiased microstructural information including precise quantification of grains and their size distributions in 3D polycrystalline samples, characterization of voids and porosity in 3D polymeric samples, and micellar size distribution in 3D complex fluids.

The MicroLad Framework: Latent Diffusion for 3D Reconstruction

The MicroLad framework represents a cutting-edge approach to 2D-to-3D microstructure reconstruction using latent diffusion models [64]. The experimental protocol involves:

Phase 1: Model Architecture and Training

• Employ a pretrained Variational Autoencoder (VAE) on 2D microstructure data to learn compact latent representations
• Train a 2D Latent Diffusion Model (LDM) to generate 2D microstructures from latent variables using denoising diffusion probabilistic models
• Implement multi-plane denoising diffusion (MPDD) within the latent space for dimensionality expansion from 2D to 3D
• Decode spatially connected 2D latent variables into coherent 3D microstructure volumes while preserving spatial coherence across slices

Phase 2: Inverse-Controlled Generation

• Integrate Score Distillation Sampling (SDS) to combine differentiable score loss with microstructural descriptor-matching and property-alignment terms
• Update encoded 2D slices of the 3D volume in the latent space to enable inverse-controlled 2D-to-3D microstructure generation
• Guide generation toward specific microstructural descriptors (two-point correlation, volume fraction, surface area) and effective material properties
• Employ differentiable evaluations of material properties to steer generation without requiring pre-labeled microstructure-property pairs

This framework achieves significant computational efficiency, reducing wall-clock time from approximately 30 minutes for pixel-space MPDD to under 10 seconds for a 64³ volume using latent MPDD (L-MPDD) while maintaining full spatial coherence [64]. The approach has been validated on binary carbonate and three-phase solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) microstructures, demonstrating accurate 3D reconstruction and inverse-controlled generation.

Diagram 1: Integrated workflow for forward and inverse structure-property linkage using the MicroLad framework

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools for 2D-to-3D Reconstruction

Category	Specific Tools/Reagents	Function/Purpose
Characterization Equipment	Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM)	High-resolution 2D surface imaging
	Electron Backscatter Diffraction (EBSD)	Crystallographic orientation mapping
	Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM)	Nanoscale structural characterization
	X-ray Computed Tomography (XCT)	Non-destructive 3D structural analysis
Computational Frameworks	MicroLad [64]	Latent diffusion for 2D-to-3D microstructure reconstruction
	ME-AI [60]	Gaussian process models with chemistry-aware kernels
	MultiMat [59]	Multimodal foundation model for material property prediction
	Dirichlet-based Gaussian Process Models	Bayesian optimization for materials discovery
Software Libraries	Python-based ML stacks (PyTorch, TensorFlow)	Implementation of deep learning architectures
	Density-based clustering algorithms (DBSCAN)	Unsupervised microstructure identification [58]
	Common Neighbor Analysis (CNA)	Local structure identification in atomistic systems [58]
	Score Distillation Sampling (SDS)	Combining score loss with descriptor matching [64]
Data Resources	Inorganic Crystal Structure Database (ICSD)	Curated crystallographic data for training [60]
	Experimental band structure databases	Expert labeling of topological materials [60]
	Synthetic microstructure datasets	Benchmarking and validation of reconstruction algorithms [58]

Future Directions and Integration with Materials Foundation Models

The convergence of foundation model research with advanced 3D reconstruction methodologies presents compelling opportunities for addressing persistent challenges in materials science and drug development. Future research directions likely include the development of cross-modal foundation models capable of translating between characterization techniques—for instance, predicting 3D tomographic data from 2D surface measurements by learning the underlying physical relationships [4] [59]. Such capabilities would dramatically accelerate materials characterization while reducing resource-intensive experimental requirements.

Similarly, the integration of active learning frameworks with foundation models promises more efficient exploration of materials space by strategically selecting experiments that maximize information gain for 3D reconstruction [60]. This approach would be particularly valuable for pharmaceutical applications, where 3D molecular conformation determines biological activity yet remains challenging to characterize experimentally. Foundation models trained on diverse molecular datasets could potentially predict 3D conformation from 2D structural representations, accelerating drug discovery pipelines.

The emerging paradigm of "AI-guided experimentation" represents perhaps the most transformative future direction, with foundation models not merely analyzing data but actively directing experimental campaigns to resolve uncertainties in 3D structure-property relationships [4] [60]. This closed-loop approach would continuously refine model understanding while optimizing experimental resource allocation, potentially yielding unprecedented insights into complex material systems and biological molecules.

Diagram 2: Future vision for foundation model-enabled materials discovery with emergent cross-modal capabilities

The 2D vs. 3D representation problem represents a fundamental challenge in materials science and drug development, with traditional approaches suffering from significant information loss when reducing complex 3D systems to 2D representations. However, emerging foundation models with their emergent capabilities in cross-modal understanding and transfer learning offer promising pathways to overcome these limitations. Frameworks such as MicroLad for microstructure reconstruction and ME-AI for encoding expert intuition demonstrate how machine learning approaches can effectively address the dimensionality gap, enabling accurate prediction of 3D properties from limited 2D data.

The integration of these advanced computational approaches with experimental materials science creates a new paradigm for discovery—one where foundation models not only analyze data but actively guide experimental strategy to efficiently explore complex structure-property relationships. As these technologies mature, they promise to accelerate materials development across diverse applications, from energy storage to pharmaceutical formulations, while fundamentally enhancing our understanding of how 3D structure dictates function across length scales.

The integration of foundation models into biomedical research represents a paradigm shift in scientific discovery, offering unprecedented capabilities for accelerating materials design and drug development. However, these powerful models are susceptible to generating hallucinations—factually incorrect, logically inconsistent, or unsupported outputs presented with deceptive confidence [65] [66]. In high-stakes fields like materials science and pharmaceutical development, where decisions directly impact therapeutic outcomes and patient safety, such errors can compromise research validity, misdirect resource-intensive experimental programs, and potentially lead to harmful conclusions [67].

The challenge is particularly acute for materials foundation models, where the consequences of undetected hallucinations can cascade through downstream experimental validation processes. A fabricated molecular property or invented compound characteristic can waste months of laboratory effort and millions of dollars in research funding [50]. This technical guide examines the nature of AI hallucinations in biomedical contexts, presents rigorous detection methodologies grounded in recent research, and proposes a comprehensive framework for ensuring model trustworthiness throughout the research lifecycle.

Defining and Characterizing Hallucinations

Terminology and Typology

Within biomedical AI, "hallucination" encompasses several distinct failure modes requiring precise differentiation:

• Confabulations: A subset of hallucinations where models generate arbitrary, incorrect outputs sensitive to irrelevant factors like random seed variations, often producing different wrong answers to identical prompts [68]. These are particularly problematic as they represent ungrounded stochastic fabrications rather than consistent errors.

• Factual Hallucinations: Outputs that contradict verifiable scientific knowledge or established biomedical facts [67].

• Faithfulness Hallucinations: Generations that violate provided source input or instructions, such as inventing experimental results not supported by given data [67].

• Adversarial Hallucinations: Errors induced through deliberate or accidental fabrications embedded in prompts, where models elaborate on false information provided by users [69].

In specialized domains like nuclear medicine imaging, hallucinations may manifest as AI-fabricated abnormalities or artifacts that appear visually realistic yet deviate from anatomical or functional truth [67]. For materials foundation models, this could translate to generating plausible but non-existent molecular structures or physical properties.

Root Causes and Contributing Factors

Hallucinations arise from interconnected technical and methodological factors:

• Architectural Foundations: The autoregressive training objectives of foundation models prioritize token-likelihood optimization over epistemic accuracy, fostering overconfidence and poorly calibrated uncertainty [65].

• Data Quality Issues: Training on incomplete, unrepresentative, or inaccurate datasets creates inherent limitations in model knowledge. Source-reference divergence in training data encourages generations not faithful to provided sources [66].

• Reasoning Deficiencies: Physician audits indicate that 64–72% of residual hallucinations in clinical models stem from causal or temporal reasoning failures rather than pure knowledge gaps [65].

• Decoding Strategies: Techniques that improve generation diversity, such as top-k sampling, correlate positively with increased hallucination rates [66].

• Knowledge Asymmetry: The profound knowledge gap between AI systems and expert end-users in specialized domains enables undetected misinformation to propagate through decision processes [65].

Quantitative Assessment of Hallucination Prevalence

Recent empirical studies reveal concerning hallucination rates across state-of-the-art models, with significant implications for biomedical applications.

Table 1: Hallucination Rates Across Model Types and Domains

Model Category	Test Domain	Hallucination Rate	Key Findings	Citation
General-Purpose LLMs	Medical Q&A	Median: 23.4% (range across 7 models)	Significantly lower than medical-specialized models	[65]
Medical-Specialized LLMs	Medical Q&A	Median: 48.7% (range across 4 models)	Higher despite domain-specific training	[65]
Adversarial Scenarios	Clinical Vignettes	50-82% (across 6 models)	Models elaborate on fabricated details	[69]
GPT-4o (Default)	Clinical Vignettes	53%	Best-performing model in adversarial test	[69]
GPT-4o (Mitigated)	Clinical Vignettes	23%	Prompt-based mitigation significantly reduces errors	[69]
MedGemma	Medical Reasoning	38.1-71.4% (varies by task)	Illustrates specialization doesn't guarantee safety	[65]

Table 2: Hallucination Mitigation Effectiveness

Mitigation Strategy	Reduction in Hallucination Rate	Limitations	Citation
Chain-of-Thought Prompting	Significant improvement (86.4% of comparisons)	Requires model capability for reasoning traces	[65]
Specialized Mitigation Prompts	66% → 44% (mean across models)	Does not eliminate risk entirely	[69]
Temperature Reduction (Temp=0)	No significant improvement	Minimal impact on adversarial hallucinations	[69]
Semantic Entropy Detection	Improved QA accuracy across datasets	Limited to confabulations, not systematic errors	[68]

Methodologies for Detection and Evaluation

Semantic Entropy for Confabulation Detection

The semantic entropy method addresses a key challenge in hallucination detection: the same meaning can be expressed through different word sequences. Traditional entropy measures incorrectly penalize this legitimate variation.

Figure 1: Semantic Entropy Detection Workflow. This process identifies confabulations by measuring uncertainty at the meaning level rather than the word level.

The experimental protocol for semantic entropy detection involves:

• Multiple Generation Sampling: For each input prompt, sample numerous potential responses (typically 5-10) using varied random seeds to capture the model's distribution over possible outputs [68].

• Semantic Clustering: Algorithmically cluster responses based on semantic equivalence using bidirectional entailment determination. Two sentences belong to the same cluster if each entails the other, assessed through natural language inference tools or LLM-based entailment checks [68].

• Entropy Calculation: Compute semantic entropy using the formula:

  $H{semantic} = - \sum{i=1}^{C} P(ci) \log P(ci)$

  where $C$ represents semantic clusters and $P(c_i)$ is the probability of cluster $i$ [68].

• Threshold Application: Classify outputs with semantic entropy exceeding a validated threshold as likely confabulations, triggering appropriate safeguards like refusal to answer or uncertainty acknowledgment.

This method has demonstrated robust performance across question-answering tasks in trivia (TriviaQA), general knowledge (SQuAD), life sciences (BioASQ), and mathematical reasoning (SVAMP), outperforming supervised baselines particularly under distribution shift [68].

Adversarial Hallucination Testing

Robustness evaluation requires deliberately challenging models with fabricated content to assess their susceptibility to adopting and elaborating on false information.

Figure 2: Adversarial Testing Methodology. This approach systematically evaluates model vulnerability to elaborating on fabricated information.

The experimental protocol for adversarial testing includes:

• Test Case Development: Create 300+ physician-validated simulated vignettes, each containing a single fabricated element (laboratory test, physical sign, or medical condition) [69]. Examples include fictitious "Serum Neurostatin" tests or "Faulkenstein Syndrome" conditions with no real-world analogs.

• Format Variation: Present each case in short (50-60 words) and long (90-100 words) versions with identical medical content to test robustness to stylistic variation [69].

• Model Evaluation: Test multiple LLMs under different conditions (default settings, mitigation prompts, temperature=0) with structured output requirements (e.g., JSON-formatted explanations) [69].

• Automated Classification: Implement pipelines to detect when models repeat or elaborate on fabricated details, with physician validation of classification accuracy [69].

• Qualitative Confrontation Analysis: Present models with real-world medical misinformation claims to assess their handling of established falsehoods beyond generic hallucination detection [69].

Robustness Specification Framework

A systematic approach to robustness testing should tailor evaluations to task-dependent priorities through predefined specifications:

Table 3: Robustness Testing Specifications for Biomedical Models

Priority Area	Test Focus	Evaluation Method	Biomedical Example
Knowledge Integrity	Realistic transforms of biomedical entities	Performance on typos, distracting domain information	Deliberately misinforming about patient history [70]
Population Structure	Performance across subpopulations	Group robustness metrics	Modifying demographic labels in patient descriptions [70]
Uncertainty Awareness	Sensitivity to prompt formatting	Output consistency across paraphrasing	Presenting out-of-context examples [70]
Temporal Reasoning	Consistency with clinical timelines	Audit of causal reasoning failures	Evaluating handling of symptom progression [65]

Mitigation Strategies and Safety Frameworks

Technical Mitigations

• Chain-of-Thought Reasoning: Explicit reasoning traces significantly reduce hallucinations in 86.4% of tested comparisons after FDR correction, enabling self-verification and error detection [65]. This approach forces models to externalize their reasoning process, making flaws detectable.

• Prompt-Based Mitigation: Specialized prompts instructing models to use only clinically validated information and acknowledge uncertainty reduce hallucination rates from 66% to 44% on average across models [69].

• Architectural Interventions: Interpretability research has identified internal circuits in LLMs that control whether to decline answering questions. Hallucinations occur when these circuits are incorrectly inhibited, suggesting targeted architectural improvements [66].

• Retrieval Augmentation: Grounding model responses in verified external knowledge bases rather than relying solely on parametric knowledge reduces fabrication [68].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Resources for Hallucination Research and Mitigation

Resource	Function	Application Context
Semantic Entropy Implementation	Detects confabulations through meaning-level uncertainty	Free-form generation tasks in scientific Q&A [68]
Adversarial Test Benchmarks	Evaluates model susceptibility to elaborating on false information	Pre-deployment safety testing [69]
Robustness Specification Templates	Guides comprehensive testing aligned with domain priorities	Customizing evaluations for specific biomedical applications [70]
Chain-of-Thought Prompt Templates	Elicits explicit reasoning for error detection	Complex reasoning tasks in materials design [65]
Biomedical Foundation Models (e.g., MedGemma)	Domain-specialized baselines	Comparative performance benchmarking [65]

Ethical and Regulatory Considerations

The integration of foundation models into biomedical research constitutes a large-scale social experiment requiring ethical frameworks tailored to experimental technologies [71] [72]. Key principles include:

• Incremental Implementation: A phased approach that enables iterative learning from experiences and testing technologies cautiously on a small scale before widespread deployment [72].

• Monitoring and Adaptation: Continuous evaluation of model performance in real-world contexts with mechanisms to promptly address emerging risks [72].

• Explicability Requirements: Ensuring model workings are reasonably understandable to users and clarifying accountability for decisions based on AI outputs [72].

Regulatory approaches inspired by the FDA model emphasize pre-market approval gates for high-risk applications, requiring developers to demonstrate safety and efficacy before deployment [73]. This includes mandatory third-party audits, sandbox testing in controlled environments, and comprehensive post-market monitoring [73].

Addressing hallucinations in biomedical foundation models requires a multi-faceted approach combining technical innovations, rigorous evaluation methodologies, and ethical frameworks. The research community must prioritize reasoning capabilities over mere knowledge acquisition, as evidence indicates that sophisticated reasoning developed during large-scale pretraining contributes more to safety than narrow domain optimization [65].

Future directions should advance uncertainty quantification methods like semantic entropy, develop robustness benchmarks tailored to materials science and drug development, and establish transparent documentation practices throughout the model lifecycle. By implementing the detection methodologies and mitigation strategies outlined in this guide, researchers can enhance the trustworthiness of foundation models while preserving their transformative potential for accelerating biomedical discovery.

The path forward requires collaborative effort across AI research, biomedical science, and regulatory domains to ensure these powerful tools meet the rigorous standards demanded by their high-stakes applications in materials research and therapeutic development.

The relentless pursuit of larger artificial intelligence models has powered breakthroughs in materials discovery, but this pursuit has now led to a computational cliff [74]. For materials science, where challenges span diverse data types and scales—from atomistic simulations to multiscale modeling—the limitations of traditional "dense" models are particularly acute [4]. Training state-of-the-art dense models, where every parameter processes every piece of information, has become an undertaking of astronomical proportions requiring supercomputers the size of football fields, consuming enough energy to power a small city, and carrying price tags in the hundreds of millions of dollars [74]. This approach faces fundamental diminishing returns, making it economically and environmentally unsustainable for the massive models required to unlock emergent capabilities in materials foundation research.

Within this context, Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architectures have emerged as a transformative architectural paradigm that fundamentally rethinks how computational resources are allocated during both training and inference [75]. By sparsely activating parameters, MoE models achieve a superior trade-off between performance and training costs, enabling unprecedented model scaling without proportional computational increases [76]. When combined with advanced supercomputing resources, these architectures offer a pathway to overcome current scaling hurdles and accelerate the development of foundation models capable of exhibiting emergent capabilities in scientific discovery—from autonomous hypothesis generation to cross-modal reasoning in materials design [4] [77].

Technical Foundations of Mixture-of-Experts Architectures

Core MoE Components and Mechanisms

Mixture-of-Experts addresses computational scaling challenges through a sophisticated sparsity-oriented design. Unlike dense models that activate all parameters for every input, MoE architectures incorporate two fundamental elements:

• Sparse MoE Layers: These replace traditional dense feed-forward network (FFN) layers with multiple "experts," each typically a feed-forward network itself. A single MoE layer might contain 8 to 256 such experts, though only a subset is activated for any given token [75].
• Gate Network (Router): This learned component determines which experts handle which tokens, consisting of trainable parameters that jointly optimize with the rest of the network. The router employs strategies like top-k routing to select the most appropriate experts for each input token [75].

The fundamental advantage lies in efficiency: during pretraining and inference, only a small subset of experts activates per token, dramatically reducing the computational footprint compared to dense models of equivalent parameter count [75]. This efficiency enables the creation of models with trillions of parameters that remain computationally feasible for real-world applications.

Advanced Routing Strategies and Specialization

The routing mechanism represents a critical design dimension where different implementations make distinct trade-offs between specialization and generalization:

• Top-k Routing Without Shared Experts: Models like GPT-OSS (120B & 20B) employ top-4 routing from large expert pools (128 or 32 experts), with outputs weighted via softmax over the selected set. Similarly, Qwen3 uses top-8 routing from 128 experts per layer. This design maximizes specialization potential by allowing each expert to develop distinct capabilities while simplifying scaling dynamics [75].
• Hybrid Top-k Routing With Shared Experts: Architectures like DeepSeek-R1-0528 activate one shared expert for all tokens plus 8 routed experts from a 256-expert pool. LLaMA-4 Maverick and Scout similarly activate one shared expert plus one routed expert. The shared pathway stabilizes generalization while the routed pathway enables token-level specialization, creating a balance between robust pattern recognition and domain-specific processing [75].

Recent investigations into MoE inner workings reveal that neurons act like fine-grained experts, with expert diversity increasing through most layers before anomalous behavior in the final layer. The router tends to select experts with larger output norms, suggesting the emergence of hierarchical specialization patterns within the expert ecosystem [76].

Figure 1: MoE Routing Architecture. Tokens are routed through a subset of experts (solid lines), while others remain inactive (dashed lines).

Quantitative Analysis of 2025's Leading MoE Models

The MoE landscape has evolved rapidly, with 2025 introducing sophisticated architectures optimized for diverse deployment scenarios. The table below captures the architectural specifications of leading models, highlighting the trade-offs between total capacity, activated parameters, and specialization granularity.

Table 1: Architectural Specifications of 2025's Leading MoE Models

Model	Total Parameters	Activated Parameters	Expert Pool Size	Active Experts per Token	Context Length	Modality
GPT-OSS-120B	117B	5.1B	128	4	128K	Text-to-Text
GPT-OSS-20B	21B	3.6B	32	4	128K	Text-to-Text
DeepSeek-R1-0528	671B	37B	256	9 (1 shared)	128K	Text-to-Text
LLaMA-4 Maverick	400B	17B	128	2 (1 shared)	1M	Image-Text-to-Text
LLaMA-4 Scout	109B	17B	16	2 (1 shared)	10M	Image-Text-to-Text
Qwen3-235B-A22B	235B	22B	128	8	32K (~131K YaRN)	Text-to-Text
Qwen3-30B-A3B	30.5B	3.3B	128	8	32K (~131K YaRN)	Text-to-Text

Several key patterns emerge from these specifications. First, the activation ratio—the proportion of total parameters used per token—typically ranges from 3% to 6%, representing substantial computational savings over dense models [75]. Second, expert pool size varies significantly, from compact 16-expert configurations to massive 256-expert pools, enabling different specialization granularities. Models like LLaMA-4 Scout demonstrate that ultra-long context capabilities (10M tokens) can be achieved while maintaining efficient activation budgets through careful architectural balancing [75].

Critical Design Patterns and Trade-offs

The comparative analysis reveals several fundamental design patterns with distinct implications for materials science applications:

• Large Routed Pools for Fine-Grained Specialization: Models including GPT-OSS-120B (128 experts), Qwen3 (128 experts), DeepSeek-R1-0528 (256 experts), and LLaMA-4 Maverick (128 experts) prioritize expert diversity, enabling narrower specialization domains that potentially benefit heterogeneous tasks in materials property prediction [75].
• Compact Routed Pools for Efficiency: Architectures like GPT-OSS-20B (32 experts) and LLaMA-4 Scout (16 experts) optimize for parameter efficiency and reduced training overhead while maintaining similar activation patterns, making them suitable for deployment-constrained environments [75].
• Shared vs. Dedicated Experts: The inclusion of shared experts (as in DeepSeek and LLaMA-4) stabilizes generalization for diverse inputs, while purely routed systems (GPT-OSS, Qwen3) maximize specialization potential—a critical consideration for foundation models that must handle both established and novel materials domains [75].

Integrated Supercomputing-MoE Experimental Framework

Protocol for MoE-Accelerated Materials Discovery

The integration of MoE architectures with advanced supercomputing infrastructure enables novel experimental paradigms for materials discovery. The following protocol outlines a representative workflow demonstrated by early adopters like ENEOS and Universal Display Corporation:

• Phase 1: Candidate Generation and Initial Screening

  • Objective: Identify promising molecular candidates from extremely large design spaces (e.g., 10^100 possible molecules for OLED materials) [77].
  • Method: Employ MoE-based generative models (decoder-only architectures) to explore chemical space and generate candidate structures based on desired property profiles.
  • Implementation: Leverage MoE models with large expert pools (e.g., 128+ experts) to capture diverse chemical motifs and synthetic constraints. Use sampling techniques to generate billions of candidate structures while maintaining chemical validity.
  • Supercomputing Resources: Distributed across multiple GPU nodes (NVIDIA H100 systems) with high-speed interconnects to enable parallel generation.

• Phase 2: High-Throughput Property Prediction

  • Objective: Screen generated candidates through computational property prediction to identify the most promising leads.
  • Method: Utilize MoE-based encoder models fine-tuned on materials property data (e.g., band gap, conductivity, stability) [5].
  • Implementation: Employ MoE models pretrained on broad scientific corpora (e.g., arXiv, patents, materials databases) then fine-tuned on targeted property prediction tasks. The sparse activation enables efficient simultaneous evaluation of multiple property endpoints.
  • Validation: Cross-reference predictions with first-principles simulations (DFT, molecular dynamics) for top candidates to verify model accuracy.

• Phase 3: Multi-Scale Simulation and Optimization

  • Objective: Validate and optimize selected candidates through high-fidelity simulation.
  • Method: Integrate with specialized simulation microservices (e.g., NVIDIA ALCHEMI NIM for conformer search and molecular dynamics) [77].
  • Implementation: Deploy containerized simulation microservices on supercomputing infrastructure, with MoE models directing parameter selection and simulation strategy. Use MoE-based reinforcement learning to iteratively refine candidate structures based on simulation results.
  • Scale: Execute batched simulations across thousands of GPU cores to evaluate millions of candidates in weeks instead of years [77].

Figure 2: Integrated MoE-Supercomputing Experimental Workflow for Materials Discovery

Performance Benchmarks and Efficiency Metrics

Early implementations of this integrated approach demonstrate transformative efficiency improvements. Universal Display Corporation reports evaluating billions of candidate molecules up to 10,000× faster than traditional computational methods using the ALCHEMI NIM microservice for AI-accelerated conformer search [77]. Similarly, ENEOS achieved evaluation of approximately 10 million liquid-immersion candidates and 100 million oxygen evolution reaction candidates within a few weeks—at least 10× more than possible with prior methods [77].

The computational efficiency stems from multiple factors: MoE architectures reduce activated parameters per token by 15-20× compared to dense models of equivalent capacity [75], while specialized supercomputing infrastructure enables massive parallelism across GPU arrays. This combination makes previously intractable discovery pipelines feasible, transforming materials research from sequential experimentation to parallel exploration.

Successful implementation of MoE-driven materials discovery requires specialized computational infrastructure and software resources. The following table catalogs essential components of the integrated supercomputing-MoE research environment.

Table 2: Essential Research Infrastructure for MoE-Accelerated Materials Discovery

Component	Function	Example Implementations
MoE Model Architectures	Sparse activation for efficient large-scale inference	DeepSeek-R1 (671B), LLaMA-4 Maverick (400B), GPT-OSS (120B) [75]
Quantization Tools	Reduce precision to decrease memory footprint and accelerate inference	MXFP4 (GPT-OSS), FP4/1.78-bit (DeepSeek), INT4 (LLaMA-4 Scout) [75]
AI Microservices	Containerized specialized algorithms for molecular analysis	NVIDIA ALCHEMI NIM (conformer search, molecular dynamics) [77]
High-Performance Computing	Massive parallel processing for training and inference	DOE national laboratory supercomputers, NVIDIA H100 GPU clusters [77] [78]
Scientific Data Platforms	Federated access to materials datasets and pretrained models	American Science and Security Platform, Federal scientific datasets [78]
Visualization Workflows	Interactive analysis of complex simulation results	ParaView, Catalyst, trame for HPC data visualization [79]
Autonomous Experimentation	AI-directed robotic laboratories for physical validation	DOE national laboratory facilities with automated workflows [78]

Emerging National Infrastructure Initiatives

The "Genesis Mission" established by presidential executive order represents a landmark investment in integrated AI-supercomputing infrastructure for scientific discovery [78]. This initiative coordinates Federal scientific datasets—described as "the world's largest collection of such datasets"—with high-performance computing resources to train scientific foundation models and create AI agents for automated research workflows [78]. The mission specifically targets challenges in advanced manufacturing, critical materials, and energy technologies—domains where MoE architectures show particular promise for enabling emergent capabilities.

The platform incorporates robotic laboratories and production facilities with AI-directed experimentation capabilities, creating closed-loop discovery systems where MoE models generate hypotheses that are physically validated through automated experiments [78]. This end-to-end integration represents the cutting edge of AI-accelerated materials discovery, potentially reducing years-long development cycles to months or weeks.

The integration of Mixture-of-Experts architectures with advanced supercomputing infrastructure represents a paradigm shift in addressing computational scaling hurdles for materials foundation models. By replacing brute-force parameter scaling with sophisticated sparsity patterns, MoE models unlock unprecedented model capacities while maintaining computational feasibility. The emerging design patterns—from expert pool sizing to routing strategies—demonstrate there is no single "best" MoE configuration, rather a spectrum of trade-offs tailored to different deployment scenarios and scientific domains [75].

For materials science research, this technological convergence comes at a pivotal moment. The field faces increasingly complex challenges—from sustainable energy materials to advanced semiconductors—that demand more sophisticated AI capabilities [5] [77]. MoE-based foundation models, trained on multimodal scientific data and integrated with automated experimentation platforms, offer a pathway to emergent capabilities such as cross-property optimization, synthesis pathway discovery, and autonomous materials design [4]. As national initiatives like the Genesis Mission [78] mature and MoE architectural innovations continue to emerge, we anticipate an acceleration in AI-driven discovery, potentially reshaping the entire materials innovation lifecycle from fundamental research to commercial application.

The most promising future research directions include developing MoE architectures specifically optimized for scientific domains, creating more efficient routing mechanisms for heterogeneous data types, and establishing standardized benchmarks for evaluating emergent capabilities in materials foundation models. As these architectures evolve, they will likely become the computational backbone for the next generation of autonomous scientific discovery systems, ultimately transforming how we understand, design, and deploy advanced materials for addressing global challenges.

Benchmarking and Validating Model Performance for Scientific Rigor

The emergence of powerful foundation models in materials science and chemistry has created an unprecedented need for robust, standardized evaluation benchmarks. Without consistent evaluation frameworks, comparing the efficacy of proposed methods becomes challenging, ultimately hindering algorithmic progress and scientific reproducibility. The development of standardized datasets serves as more than a simple collection of data—it establishes a common ground for the community to develop, compare, and improve models systematically. This whitepaper examines the evolution and current state of molecular benchmarking, focusing on the transformative role of MoleculeNet and the emergence of next-generation benchmarks that are shaping the future of materials foundation model research.

Historically, the field suffered from fragmented evaluation practices where researchers benchmarked algorithms on different datasets with varying metrics and data splitting protocols, making direct comparison between methods nearly impossible [80]. This lack of standardization presented a significant barrier to progress in molecular machine learning. The introduction of comprehensive benchmarks has triggered breakthroughs by facilitating friendly competition and providing clear performance metrics, similar to how ImageNet revolutionized computer vision [80]. For researchers and drug development professionals working with emergent materials foundation models, these benchmarks provide the critical trust framework needed to translate model predictions into scientific insights and practical applications.

MoleculeNet: A Foundational Benchmark for Molecular Machine Learning

Architecture and Design Principles

MoleculeNet was specifically designed to overcome the benchmarking limitations that plagued early molecular machine learning research. Created as a large-scale benchmark for molecular machine learning, it curates multiple public datasets, establishes standardized metrics for evaluation, and provides high-quality open-source implementations of multiple previously proposed molecular featurization and learning algorithms through the DeepChem package [80] [81]. Its architecture embodies several key design principles essential for effective benchmarking in scientific domains.

The system provides a standardized interface for accessing datasets, applying featurization methods, and evaluating model performance. A typical implementation involves just a single line of code: deepchem.molnet.run_benchmark(datasets, model, split, featurizer) [80]. This simplicity belies the sophisticated framework underneath that ensures consistent evaluation across studies. MoleculeNet incorporates appropriate data splitting strategies—including random, stratified, and scaffold splits—that respect the underlying chemical realities and prevent data leakage [80]. This is particularly crucial in molecular machine learning where conventional random splitting can produce overly optimistic results due to structural similarities between molecules in training and test sets [80].

Table 1: Key Dataset Categories in MoleculeNet

Category	Example Datasets	Primary Applications	Data Type
Quantum Mechanics	QM7, QM8, QM9 [82]	Predicting quantum mechanical properties of molecules	SMILES, 3D coordinates
Physical Chemistry	ESOL, FreeSolv, Lipophilicity [82]	Predicting physicochemical properties like solubility	SMILES
Biophysics	PCBA, MUV, HIV, BACE [82] [83]	Virtual screening, binding affinity prediction	SMILES, bioassay results
Physiology	Tox21, ToxCast, SIDER [82] [83]	Toxicity prediction, adverse drug reaction modeling	SMILES, biological endpoints

Experimental Protocol and Implementation

Implementing a MoleculeNet benchmark requires careful attention to data loading, featurization, model selection, and evaluation. The following protocol outlines the standard methodology for conducting benchmarks using this framework:

• Data Loading: Import the desired dataset using the appropriate loader function, such as dc.molnet.load_delaney() for solubility data or dc.molnet.load_bace_classification() for binding affinity classification [82]. These functions return a tuple containing (tasks, datasets, transformers), where datasets itself is a tuple of (train, valid, test) DeepChem Dataset objects [82].

• Featurization Selection: Choose an appropriate featurization method that transforms molecular structures into machine-readable representations. Options include Extended-Connectivity Fingerprints (ECFP), Graph Convolutions (GraphConv), MolGraphConv, and others, each with distinct advantages for different molecular properties [82] [83].

• Model Training and Evaluation: Train machine learning models on the featurized training data and evaluate performance on the validation and test sets using dataset-appropriate metrics. For regression tasks, Mean Absolute Error (MAE) or Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) are commonly used, while ROC-AUC is typical for classification tasks [80].

The benchmark results consistently demonstrate that learnable representations are powerful tools for molecular machine learning, generally offering the best performance across diverse tasks [80]. However, important caveats emerge, particularly that learnable representations still struggle with complex tasks under data scarcity and highly imbalanced classification scenarios [80]. For quantum mechanical and biophysical datasets, the use of physics-aware featurizations can prove more important than the choice of a particular learning algorithm [80].

Diagram 1: The MoleculeNet Benchmarking Workflow. This standardized process ensures consistent evaluation across different machine learning approaches.

The Evolving Benchmarking Landscape: Next-Generation Challenges and Solutions

Beyond 2D Representations: The Shift to 3D and Multimodal Data

While MoleculeNet primarily focuses on 2D molecular representations such as SMILES or SELFIES, the field is rapidly evolving to incorporate 3D structural information and multimodal data. This shift recognizes that key molecular information, particularly for quantum mechanical and biophysical applications, is often encoded in the three-dimensional conformation of molecules [5]. The current literature remains dominated by models trained on 2D representations, partly due to the significant disparity in available datasets—current foundation models are trained on 2D datasets containing ~10^9 molecules, a scale not yet readily available for 3D data [5]. This represents a significant limitation in existing benchmarks and an area of active development.

The recently released Open Molecules 2025 (OMol25) dataset directly addresses this gap by providing an unprecedented collection of over 100 million 3D molecular snapshots whose properties have been calculated with density functional theory (DFT) [84]. This dataset is ten times larger and substantially more complex than previous efforts, with configurations containing up to 350 atoms from across most of the periodic table, including challenging heavy elements and metals [84]. For researchers evaluating foundation models, this represents a quantum leap in benchmarking capabilities, particularly for applications requiring precise spatial understanding of molecular interactions, such as drug binding and catalytic activity.

Trust and Evaluation in Foundation Models for Materials Science

As foundation models grow more complex, evaluation methodologies must evolve beyond simple property prediction. The materials science community is developing increasingly sophisticated benchmarks that test model capabilities across diverse tasks, including property prediction, synthesis planning, and molecular generation [5]. A critical development is the creation of more thorough evaluations to build researcher confidence in machine learning potential (MLIP) predictions, especially for complex chemistry involving bond breaking and formation, and molecules with variable charges and spins [84].

The OMol25 project exemplifies this trend by providing comprehensive evaluations—sets of challenges that analyze how well a model can accurately complete useful scientific tasks [84]. These evaluations drive innovation through friendly competition, with publicly ranked results that allow potential users to compare model performance and developers to gauge their progress against the state of the art [84]. Simultaneously, new benchmarks like MatTools are emerging to evaluate large language models on their proficiency in answering materials science questions through the generation and execution of code based on physics-based computational packages [85]. This reflects a broader recognition that benchmarking must extend beyond pure prediction to encompass practical tool usage and scientific workflow integration.

Table 2: Comparison of Major Benchmarking Resources

Benchmark	Data Modality	Scale	Key Strengths	Primary Applications
MoleculeNet [80] [81]	Primarily 2D structures	17+ datasets, ~700k compounds [80]	Diverse property labels, standardized splits	Molecular property prediction
OMol25 [84] [86]	3D molecular structures	100M+ snapshots, 6B CPU hours [84]	DFT-level accuracy, chemical diversity	Neural network potentials, force field development
MatTools [85]	Code generation for materials tools	69k QA pairs, 138 subtasks [85]	Real-world tool usage assessment	LLM capability evaluation for materials science

Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking Foundation Models

Protocol 1: Benchmarking Property Prediction Models

For researchers evaluating foundation models on molecular property prediction tasks, the following detailed protocol provides a standardized approach:

• Dataset Selection: Choose relevant datasets from MoleculeNet categories aligned with your target application. For drug discovery, biophysical datasets like BACE (regression or classification) are appropriate, while for materials science, quantum mechanical datasets like QM9 or physical chemistry datasets like ESOL may be more suitable [82] [83].

• Data Partitioning: Implement the recommended splitting strategy for each dataset. Use scaffold splitting for BACE datasets to ensure that molecules with similar molecular scaffolds are separated between training and test sets, which provides a more realistic assessment of generalization ability [83]. For quantum mechanical datasets, random splitting is typically acceptable [80].

• Featurization: Apply appropriate featurizers for your model architecture. For graph neural networks, use MolGraphConvFeaturizer with edges; for traditional machine learning models, use ECFP fingerprints [83].

• Model Training and Evaluation: Train your model on the training set, using the validation set for hyperparameter tuning. Evaluate on the held-out test set using the recommended metric for each dataset (e.g., RMSE for ESOL, MAE for QM7) [80]. Report performance as the mean and standard deviation across multiple runs with different random seeds.

Protocol 2: Evaluating Neural Network Potentials on OMol25

For evaluating cutting-edge neural network potentials (NNPs) on the OMol25 dataset, a different protocol is required:

• Dataset Access and Filtering: Access the OMol25 dataset, which is organized into biomolecules, electrolytes, and metal complexes [84] [86]. Consider filtering to specific chemical domains relevant to your application, such as protein-ligand binding poses for drug discovery or electrolyte degradation pathways for battery chemistry.

• Model Selection: Choose appropriate pre-trained models such as Meta's eSEN (equipariant Sim(3)-Equivariant Network) or UMA (Universal Model for Atoms) architectures, which are trained on OMol25 and available via platforms like HuggingFace [86].

• Accuracy Benchmarking: Evaluate energy and force predictions against high-accuracy DFT calculations using the Wiggle150 benchmark or the GMTKN55 WTMAD-2 benchmark, focusing on relevant subsets for your application [86].

• Performance and Conservation Testing: Measure inference speed and memory usage under realistic workloads. For dynamics applications, verify that the model produces conservative forces and stable molecular dynamics trajectories, as non-conservative models can produce unphysical behavior [86].

Diagram 2: The Evolution of Benchmarking in Molecular Machine Learning, showing the expansion from property prediction to 3D dynamics and tool usage evaluation.

Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Molecular Benchmarking Experiments

Resource	Type	Primary Function	Access Method
DeepChem Library [82] [83]	Software Library	Provides MoleculeNet dataset loaders, featurizers, and model implementations	Python package install via pip
OMol25 Datasets [84] [86]	3D Molecular Dataset	Training and benchmarking neural network potentials with DFT-level accuracy	Publicly released dataset
Universal Model for Atoms (UMA) [86]	Pre-trained Model	Unified architecture trained on OMol25 and other datasets for out-of-the-box applications	HuggingFace model repository
eSEN Models [86]	Pre-trained Neural Network Potentials	Equivariant models providing conservative forces for molecular dynamics	HuggingFace model repository
MatTools Benchmark [85]	Evaluation Framework	Standardized assessment of LLM capabilities for materials science tool usage	GitHub repository

The evolution of evaluation benchmarks from MoleculeNet to OMol25 and beyond represents a maturing of the entire field of molecular machine learning. These standardized datasets and evaluation protocols have transitioned from focusing primarily on 2D property prediction to encompassing 3D molecular dynamics, multi-modal data integration, and practical tool usage. For researchers and drug development professionals, this evolving benchmarking ecosystem provides the critical foundation needed to validate, compare, and trust the emergent capabilities of materials foundation models.

As the field progresses, several key trends are likely to shape the next generation of benchmarks: increased emphasis on 3D spatial reasoning, integration of multi-modal data (combining structural, textual, and spectral information), more sophisticated evaluation of model robustness and uncertainty quantification, and frameworks for assessing scientific reasoning and tool usage capabilities. These developments will further accelerate the translation of foundation model research into tangible scientific discoveries and practical applications across materials science and drug development. The establishment of these robust benchmarking practices ensures that the field can continue to advance in a rigorous, reproducible, and collaborative manner.

The field of materials science is undergoing a paradigm shift, moving from artisanal, trial-and-error discovery to an industrial-scale, AI-driven enterprise [35]. Central to this transformation are foundation models (FMs)—AI systems pretrained on broad data that can be adapted to a wide range of downstream tasks [5]. These models are developing emergent capabilities, demonstrating proficiency in tasks beyond their initial training, such as cross-modal reasoning and inverse design [4] [87]. This analysis provides a comparative evaluation of leading materials foundation models, focusing on their architectural approaches, performance on specific scientific tasks, and their emerging potential to redefine the pace and nature of materials discovery.

The table below summarizes the core architectures, strengths, and documented performance of several prominent models in the research landscape.

Table 1: Comparative Overview of Leading Materials Foundation Models

Model/Project (Institution)	Core Architecture & Approach	Key Strengths & Emergent Capabilities	Documented Performance & Applications
IBM's FM4M Family [7]	Multi-modal Mixture of Experts (MoE); combines SMILES-TED, SELFIES-TED, and MHG-GED models.	Predictive Supremacy on benchmarks; effective fusion of complementary molecular representations; open-source.	Outperformed other leading models on the MoleculeNet benchmark; predicts battery electrolyte performance with high accuracy from small datasets (~140 data points) [88].
Argonne's Electrolyte Model [89]	Machine learning model mapping chemical structure to battery performance via molecular descriptors.	Efficient screening with limited initial data; accelerated discovery for high-voltage LNMO batteries.	Trained on just 28 diverse additives to successfully predict performance of 125 new combinations; identified outperforming additives, saving 4-6 months of experimental work [89] [90].
University of Michigan Foundation Model [91]	Transformer-based model pre-trained on billions of molecules (e.g., 2B), inspired by large language models.	Scalable pre-training on massive molecular datasets (e.g., PubChem, ZINC); precise property prediction for organic molecules.	Focuses on small organic molecules for electrolytes; expanding to solid-state materials and molecular crystals using exascale computing [91].
MIT's SCIGEN [6]	Constrained diffusion model (built on DiffCSP).	Generation of materials with specific, exotic geometric patterns (e.g., Kagome, Lieb lattices) for quantum properties.	Generated over 10 million candidate materials with target lattices; led to synthesis and experimental validation of two new magnetic compounds, TiPdBi and TiPbSb [6].
MatterGen [87]	Diffusion model.	Generation of novel, stable crystal structures with desired properties.	Designed for inverse design of functional materials, accelerating the search for new materials with targeted characteristics.

Detailed Methodologies and Experimental Protocols

IBM's FM4M: A Multi-Modal Fusion Approach

The experimental protocol for IBM's Foundation Models for Materials (FM4M) is centered on a Mixture of Experts (MoE) architecture that fuses different molecular representations [7].

• Step 1: Independent Pre-training: Three separate models were pre-trained on large, unlabeled datasets:
  • SMILES-TED: Pre-trained on 91 million validated SMILES strings from PubChem and Zinc-22.
  • SELFIES-TED: Pre-trained on 1 billion SELFIES strings.
  • MHG-GED: A graph-based model pre-trained on 1.4 million molecular graphs.
• Step 2: Multi-View Fusion via MoE: A router algorithm directs incoming queries (molecular data) to the most relevant "expert" model(s). The embeddings from the three modalities are combined, allowing the model to leverage the strengths of each representation for different tasks [7].
• Step 3: Fine-Tuning and Benchmarking: The fused model is then fine-tuned on specific, smaller labeled datasets. Its performance was rigorously tested on the MoleculeNet benchmark, which includes both classification (e.g., toxicity prediction) and regression tasks (e.g., solubility prediction) [7].

Argonne's Electrolyte Model: Data-Efficient Discovery

Argonne's methodology demonstrates how machine learning can drastically accelerate discovery even with a small, high-quality initial dataset [89].

• Step 1: Curating a Diverse Training Set: Researchers began by creating a focused dataset of 28 electrolyte additives. Critically, this set was chosen to incorporate a wide variety of chemical functionalities to ensure the model could learn generalizable patterns [89].
• Step 2: Mapping Structure to Performance: The core of the model involved establishing "descriptors" – quantitative features of the additive molecules that map their chemical structure to key battery performance metrics like resistance and energy capacity [89].
• Step 3: Model Training and Prediction: A machine learning model was trained on the initial 28-additive dataset to learn the structure-property relationship. Once trained, the model was used to predict the performance of 125 new, untested additive combinations [89].
• Step 4: Experimental Validation: The most promising candidates identified by the model were then synthesized and tested in actual LNMO batteries, confirming that several new combinations outperformed those from the initial dataset [89].

Diagram 1: Argonne's discovery workflow.

The experimental workflows for developing and applying these advanced AI models rely on a suite of computational and data resources.

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Resources for Materials Foundation Models

Resource Category	Specific Examples	Function in the Research Workflow
Molecular Representations	SMILES, SELFIES, Molecular Graphs [7]	Provides machine-readable formats for complex 3D molecular structures, serving as the primary input data for training models.
Large-Scale Datasets	PubChem, Zinc-22, ChEMBL [5] [7]	Offers massive, diverse corpora of molecular structures for self-supervised pre-training of foundation models.
Specialized Benchmarks	MoleculeNet [7]	Provides standardized tasks (e.g., property prediction) to quantitatively evaluate and compare model performance.
High-Performance Computing (HPC)	Argonne's Polaris & Aurora [91]	Delivers the exascale computational power required for training billion-parameter models on massive datasets.
Autonomous Experimentation	Argonne's Polybot [91]	Robotic platform that physically tests AI-generated material candidates, closing the discovery loop.

Architectural Insights: A Comparative Visualization

The leading models employ distinct architectural paradigms, which are visualized below. IBM's approach uses fusion, Argonne's uses efficient mapping, and models like MIT's SCIGEN apply generative constraints.

Diagram 2: Comparative model architectures.

Discussion and Future Directions

The comparative analysis reveals that no single model architecture is universally superior; each excels in a specific problem context. IBM's FM4M demonstrates the power of multi-modal fusion for robust property prediction on established benchmarks [7]. In contrast, Argonne's model highlights a pragmatic, data-efficient pathway to rapid discovery in applied settings where large datasets are unavailable [89]. Meanwhile, models like MIT's SCIGEN and MatterGen represent a shift from prediction to constrained generation, aiming for breakthrough materials with exotic properties [6] [87].

A key emergent capability across these models is their role in the inverse design process, where desired properties are specified and the model generates candidate structures that meet them [87]. Furthermore, the integration of AI with autonomous robotic systems, exemplified by Argonne's Polybot, is closing the loop between computational prediction and experimental validation, creating a self-driving laboratory for materials science [91].

Future progress hinges on overcoming several challenges, including the need for larger, higher-quality 3D datasets, improved model interpretability, and the development of standards for validating AI-generated discoveries [4] [35]. As these models evolve, they will increasingly act not just as tools, but as collaborative partners in scientific discovery, reshaping the very nature of materials research [87].

The emergence of foundation models (FMs) is catalyzing a paradigm shift in materials science, moving the field beyond task-specific machine learning to scalable, general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) systems [41]. These models, trained on broad data using self-supervision at scale and adaptable to a wide range of downstream tasks, demonstrate unprecedented capabilities in materials property prediction, molecular generation, and synthesis planning [5] [92]. However, the rapid adoption of these powerful models has exposed a critical evaluation gap. Traditional metrics, predominantly focused on predictive accuracy, are insufficient for assessing the true viability of AI-driven solutions in scientific and industrial contexts [41]. For materials foundation models to transition from research prototypes to trustworthy tools for drug development and materials discovery, a more comprehensive evaluation framework is essential—one that rigorously assesses interpretability, robustness, and real-world utility alongside traditional performance metrics. This framework is particularly crucial given the high-stakes nature of scientific discovery, where model failures can lead to costly, unproductive research avenues.

The Emergent Capabilities of Materials Foundation Models

Foundation models in materials science exhibit several emergent capabilities not explicitly programmed during training. Their versatility stems from their training on "broad data," which allows for adaptation through fine-tuning or prompting to diverse downstream tasks [92] [41]. A key architectural feature is the decoupling of representation learning from specific downstream tasks. This enables a "once-for-all" pre-training on massive, often unlabeled datasets, followed by efficient adaptation to specialized tasks with minimal labeled data [5].

These models demonstrate significant cross-modal generalization. They can integrate and reason across diverse data modalities, including atomic structures (e.g., SMILES, SELFIES, crystal graphs), textual descriptions from scientific literature, spectral data, and experimental properties [41]. Furthermore, they show strong inverse design capabilities, moving beyond property prediction to generating novel molecular structures with desired target properties, thereby accelerating the discovery pipeline [5] [41]. The following table summarizes the core architectures and their primary applications in materials science.

Table 1: Foundation Model Architectures and Their Applications in Materials Science

Architecture Type	Primary Function	Example Models	Common Applications in Materials Science
Encoder-Only	Understanding and representing input data	BERT-style models [5]	Property prediction, named entity recognition, data extraction from literature [5] [41]
Decoder-Only	Generating new outputs token-by-token	GPT-style models [5]	Molecular generation, synthesis planning, text generation [5] [41]
Encoder-Decoder	Understanding input and generating output	T5-style models	Task-specific fine-tuning, multi-modal learning
Graph Neural Networks	Modeling relational and structural data	GNoME, MACE-MP-0 [41]	Predicting stability of crystal structures, universal machine-learned interatomic potentials [41]

A Multi-Dimensional Evaluation Framework

Quantifying Interpretability

Interpretability is the degree to which a human can understand the cause of a model's decision. For materials scientists, this is not a luxury but a necessity for building trust and generating actionable hypotheses. Evaluations must move beyond post-hoc explanations to intrinsic interpretability.

Methodologies for Evaluation:

• Circuit Analysis: Identify sparse, human-understandable subnetworks within foundation models that are responsible for specific scientific predictions, such as identifying functional groups related to toxicity.
• Concept Activation Vectors: Test and quantify the presence of human-defined concepts (e.g., aromaticity, sp2 hybridization) within the model's latent representations to ensure it learns chemically meaningful features.
• Counterfactual Explanations: Generate minimal perturbations to an input structure (e.g., a molecule) that flip the model's prediction. Analyzing these perturbations reveals the model's decision boundaries and sensitive features.

Table 2: Quantitative Metrics for Model Interpretability

Metric	Description	Experimental Protocol
Faithfulness	Measures how accurately an explanation reflects the model's true reasoning process.	1. Compute feature importance scores for a prediction.2. Iteratively remove top features and measure the drop in prediction probability.3. A steeper drop indicates more faithful explanations.
Complexity	Assesses the conciseness of an explanation.	Calculate the entropy or Gini impurity of feature importance scores; lower evenness indicates lower complexity.
Stability/ Robustness	Evaluates the sensitivity of explanations to small input perturbations.	1. Apply slight, meaning-preserving noise to the input (e.g., atom indexing in a molecular graph).2. Generate explanations for original and perturbed inputs.3. Measure the similarity (e.g., Jaccard index) between the two explanations.

Stress-Testing Robustness

Robustness refers to a model's ability to maintain performance when faced with distribution shifts, noisy data, or adversarial attacks. Materials data is particularly prone to "activity cliffs," where minute structural changes lead to dramatic property shifts, making robustness critical [5].

Key Experimental Protocols:

• Out-of-Distribution Generalization: Train a model on a dataset like ZINC or ChEMBL, then evaluate its performance on a held-out scaffold or a different dataset with a distinct chemical space (e.g., moving from drug-like molecules to inorganic crystals) [5] [41].
• Adversarial Robustness: Apply small, worst-case perturbations to input representations (e.g., SMILES strings or graph structures) designed to cause maximal prediction error. The magnitude of performance drop under such attacks quantifies adversarial robustness.
• Noise Inoculation: Corrupt input data with varying levels of synthetic noise, simulating errors in experimental data capture or quantum mechanical simulations. A robust model's performance should degrade gracefully.

Table 3: Benchmarking Robustness Against Distribution Shifts

Shift Type	Description	Impact on Model Performance	Evaluation Dataset
Covariate Shift	Change in the distribution of input features (e.g., different elemental prevalence).	Models may fail to generalize to regions of chemical space not well-represented in training data.	ZINC [5] vs. proprietary in-house library
Label Noise	Incorrect or noisy property labels from experiment or simulation.	Can lead to biased models and incorrect structure-property relationships.	ChEMBL [5] with introduced label errors
Geometric Shift	Difference in conformational or spatial arrangement not captured in 2D representations.	Significant for properties dependent on 3D structure; a key weakness of SMILES-based models [5].	2D (SMILES) vs. 3D (conformer) representations

Establishing Real-World Utility

Ultimately, a model's value is determined by its impact on accelerating scientific discovery and development processes. Real-world utility moves beyond static benchmarks to assess performance in dynamic, applied contexts.

Evaluation Strategies:

• Success Rate in Closed-Loop Discovery: Integrate the model into an autonomous or human-in-the-loop discovery pipeline, such as an A-Lab. The key metric is the number of successfully synthesized and validated materials with target properties per unit time or cost [41].
• Sample Efficiency in Inverse Design: Measure the number of candidate materials a model needs to propose before a high-performing one is identified, compared to random search or other baselines.
• Prospective Experimental Validation: The gold standard for utility is prospective validation. This involves using the model to design new molecules or materials, then synthesizing and testing them in the lab to confirm predicted properties [41]. This directly measures the model's ability to generate novel, viable scientific knowledge.

The development and evaluation of materials foundation models rely on a suite of software tools, datasets, and computational resources.

Table 4: Essential Tools and Resources for FM Research and Evaluation

Tool/Resource	Type	Function & Utility	Reference
Open MatSci ML Toolkit	Software Toolkit	Standardizes graph-based materials learning workflows, enabling reproducible benchmarking of model performance and robustness.	[41]
FORGE	Software Toolkit	Provides scalable pretraining utilities across scientific domains, facilitating the development of new foundation models.	[41]
Neptune	MLOps Platform	An experiment tracker purpose-built for foundation model development, helping teams monitor, evaluate, and scale model training.	[92]
Material Color Utilities	Library	Provides implementations of the HCT color space, crucial for generating accessible visualizations with perceptually accurate color scales.	[93]
ZINC/ChEMBL	Datasets	Large-scale, publicly available chemical databases used for pre-training and benchmarking foundation models for property prediction and generation.	[5]
GNoME Dataset	Dataset	A dataset of millions of stable crystal structures, used for training and evaluating models on inorganic materials discovery.	[41]

Experimental Workflow for Comprehensive Evaluation

The following diagram outlines a standardized workflow for evaluating a materials foundation model across the three core dimensions discussed in this guide.

Evaluation Workflow for Materials Foundation Models

The journey of materials foundation models from impressive research artifacts to indispensable scientific tools hinges on our ability to evaluate them holistically. An exclusive focus on predictive accuracy provides a dangerously incomplete picture. By adopting the multi-dimensional framework presented here—rigorously assessing interpretability to build trust, stress-testing robustness to ensure reliability, and validating real-world utility to demonstrate impact—researchers and drug development professionals can better navigate the promise and perils of this transformative technology. This thorough approach to evaluation is the cornerstone for realizing the full potential of emergent AI capabilities in accelerating the discovery of the next generation of materials and therapeutics.

The emergence of foundation models in materials science represents a paradigm shift in how researchers approach molecule design, property prediction, and materials discovery [5]. These models, trained on broad data using self-supervision at scale, can be adapted to a wide range of downstream tasks, from predicting material properties to generating novel molecular structures [5] [94]. However, a critical gap persists between the digital aspirations of these AI systems and the complex physical reality of materials synthesis and characterization. While foundation models show remarkable capability in navigating chemical space in silico, their true impact remains limited without rigorous experimental validation and synthesis [95]. This whitepaper examines the current state of experimental validation for materials foundation models, detailing specific methodologies, benchmarks, and protocols that are bridging this divide, with particular focus on emergent capabilities in autonomous characterization and multimodal learning that are transforming the validation pipeline.

The Digital Frontier: Capabilities of Modern Materials Foundation Models

Modern materials foundation models employ diverse architectural approaches and training methodologies, each with distinct strengths for materials discovery applications.

Table 1: Architectural Approaches in Materials Foundation Models

Architecture Type	Key Characteristics	Primary Applications in Materials Science	Examples
Encoder-Only	Focuses on understanding/representing input data; generates meaningful representations [5]	Property prediction from structure; materials classification [5]	BERT-based models [5]
Decoder-Only	Generates new outputs by predicting one token at a time [5]	Generating novel molecular structures; inverse design [5]	GPT-based models [5]
Multimodal	Aligns latent spaces across multiple data modalities [94]	Cross-property prediction; materials discovery via latent space similarity [94]	MultiMat framework [94]

These models typically utilize molecular representations such as SMILES, SELFIES, and graph-based encodings, each offering distinct advantages for model training and prediction accuracy [5] [96]. Foundation models leverage transfer learning through a two-stage process: unsupervised pre-training on large amounts of unlabeled data followed by fine-tuning with significantly smaller labeled datasets for specific downstream tasks [5]. An optional alignment process further refines outputs to user preferences, such as generating structures with improved synthesizability or chemical correctness [5].

The MultiMat framework exemplifies recent advancements, enabling self-supervised multi-modality training that aligns information from crystal structures, density of states (DOS), charge density, and textual descriptions in a shared latent space [94]. This approach demonstrates three significant capabilities: (1) state-of-the-art performance for challenging material property prediction tasks; (2) novel material discovery via latent space similarity screening; and (3) encoding of interpretable emergent features that may provide novel scientific insights [94].

The Physical Reality: Experimental Complexities and Validation Imperatives

Despite impressive digital capabilities, foundation models face significant challenges when confronting physical reality. A primary limitation stems from training data constraints—most models utilize 2D molecular representations (SMILES, SELFIES), omitting critical 3D conformational information that profoundly influences material properties [5]. This discrepancy is largely due to the scarcity of large-scale 3D structural datasets comparable to the ~10^9 molecule datasets available for 2D representations [5].

The materials discovery process presents additional complexities through "activity cliffs" where minute structural details can profoundly influence properties [5]. In high-temperature cuprate superconductors, for instance, critical temperature (Tc) can be dramatically affected by subtle variations in hole-doping levels [5]. Models trained without sufficient richness in their training data may completely miss these effects, potentially leading research down non-productive paths.

Autonomous characterization in electron microscopy highlights the validation challenge. While modern instruments generate imaging, spectroscopic, and diffraction signals that form multimodal, time-varying descriptors across millimeters to picometers, the interpretation of this data is complicated by the physics of electron-sample interactions that lead to signal delocalization and interpretive complexities [95]. Furthermore, the apparent width of a grain boundary or interface may differ depending on whether it is measured using imaging or spectroscopic techniques [95]. These nuances create significant hurdles for AI models trained exclusively on digital representations without physical validation.

Table 2: Key Challenges in Experimental Validation

Challenge Category	Specific Limitations	Impact on Model Reliability
Data Modality Gaps	Dominance of 2D representations; limited 3D structural data [5]	Inaccurate property predictions; missed structure-property relationships
Characterization Complexity	Signal delocalization in STEM; multimodal interpretation conflicts [95]	Difficulty correlating model predictions with experimental observations
Synthesizability	Disconnect between computationally predicted and experimentally feasible structures [5]	Limited practical utility of generated molecular structures
Scale Discrepancies	Differences in spatial/temporal scales between simulation and experiment [95]	Challenges in validating predicted behaviors across scales

Bridging the Gap: Methodologies for Experimental Validation and Synthesis

Multimodal Learning Frameworks

The MultiMat framework addresses the validation gap by aligning multiple information-rich modalities in a shared latent space [94]. The experimental protocol involves:

• Modality Encoding: Separate neural network encoders transform raw data from each modality into embeddings:

  • Crystal structure encoded using PotNet (a state-of-the-art GNN) [94]
  • Density of states (DOS) encoded via Transformer architectures [94]
  • Charge density processed using 3D-CNN architectures [94]
  • Textual descriptions encoded using MatBERT (a materials-specific BERT model) [94]

• Latent Space Alignment: Contrastive learning aligns embeddings from different modalities representing the same material, creating a unified representation space [94].

• Cross-Modal Validation: Properties predicted from one modality can be validated against measurements from another, enabling internal consistency checks before physical synthesis [94].

This framework enables novel material discovery through latent space similarity screening, where candidate materials with embeddings similar to target properties can be identified and prioritized for experimental synthesis [94].

Autonomous Characterization and Closed-Loop Experimentation

Scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM) has emerged as a critical platform for autonomous characterization, combining imaging, spectroscopic, and diffraction signals that form multimodal descriptors across spatial scales [95]. The experimental workflow for autonomous microscopy includes:

• Real-time Classification: Computer vision techniques, aided by packages like AtomAI and MicroNet, quantify atomic structure with high accuracy, informing physical models of point defects [95].

• Multimodal Data Integration: Emerging multimodal models integrate the full spectrum of data generated by modern instruments to create representative descriptors of crystalline order [95].

• Closed-Loop Control: Autonomous control of the electron beam, stage, and environment enables programming materials atom-by-atom, precisely positioning dopants and introducing vacancies guided by real-time ML models [95].

This autonomous approach enables statistical studies at unprecedented scales, characterizing the behavior of millions of atoms and defects while validating synthesis across thousands of particles [95].

Benchmarking and Evaluation Frameworks

Rigorous benchmarking is essential for validating foundation model capabilities against experimental reality. The MatQnA benchmark dataset provides the first multi-modal benchmark specifically designed for material characterization techniques [97]. It includes:

• Ten mainstream characterization methods including XPS, XRD, SEM, and TEM [97]
• High-quality question-answer pairs constructed using a hybrid approach combining LLMs with human-in-the-loop validation [97]
• Both multiple-choice and subjective questions evaluating materials data interpretation and analysis capabilities [97]

Preliminary evaluations show that advanced multi-modal AI models (e.g., GPT-4.1, Claude 4, Gemini 2.5) have achieved nearly 90% accuracy on objective questions in materials data interpretation tasks, demonstrating strong potential for applications in materials characterization and analysis [97].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Tool/Resource	Type/Function	Application in Validation
AtomAI	Software package for computer vision in microscopy [95]	Quantifying atomic structure from microscopy images; defect classification [95]
MicroNet	Computer vision package for materials [95]	Image analysis and feature extraction from microstructural data [95]
MatQnA Dataset	Benchmark for multimodal LLMs in materials [97]	Evaluating model performance on characterization data interpretation [97]
Robocrystallographer	Text description generator for crystals [94]	Generating textual modality for multimodal learning [94]
MultiMat Framework	Multimodal learning framework [94]	Aligning multiple data modalities for cross-validation [94]
Plot2Spectra	Specialized algorithm for data extraction [5]	Extracting data points from spectroscopy plots in scientific literature [5]
DePlot	Visual representation converter [5]	Converting plots and charts into structured tabular data [5]
PubChem/ChEMBL/ZINC	Chemical databases [5]	Training data sources for foundation models [5]

Future Directions: Toward Tightly-Coupled Digital-Physical Discovery

The future of materials foundation models lies in tighter integration between digital prediction and physical validation. Promising directions include:

• Advanced Multimodal Learning: Expanding beyond current modalities to include real-time synthesis data, in operando characterization, and functional performance metrics.

• Autonomous Discovery Loops: Fully integrated systems where foundation models not only predict materials but also design and interpret experiments conducted by autonomous laboratories.

• Explainable Emergent Features: Developing interpretation techniques for the emergent features learned by foundation models, potentially revealing novel structure-property relationships [94].

• Synthesizability-focused Generation: Constraining generative models with synthesizability metrics and reaction pathway predictions to ensure practical viability.

As these capabilities mature, the critical role of experimental validation and synthesis will only grow more pronounced, ensuring that the digital promise of foundation models becomes physically manifest in novel, functional materials that address pressing technological challenges.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly foundation models, into clinical research represents a paradigm shift in therapeutic development. These sophisticated models, trained on broad data through self-supervision and adaptable to diverse downstream tasks, are accelerating materials discovery, molecular generation, and property prediction in pharmaceutical research [5]. As these technologies demonstrate emergent capabilities in scientific domains, establishing robust frameworks for their responsible deployment in human subjects research becomes critically important. The rapid proliferation of AI in healthcare demands intentional governance strategies to balance innovation with patient safety, data privacy, and ethical considerations [98].

The unique characteristics of foundation models—including their adaptive learning capabilities, inherent opacity, and data-intensive requirements—present unprecedented challenges for traditional research oversight structures [99]. Institutional review boards (IRBs), researchers, and regulatory bodies now face novel questions regarding algorithmic bias, data identifiability, and appropriate human oversight mechanisms [100]. This technical guide examines current frameworks and methodologies designed to address these challenges while promoting the responsible integration of AI into clinical research ecosystems.

Foundational Concepts and Regulatory Landscape

Defining AI Foundation Models in Scientific Research

Foundation models represent a class of AI systems characterized by broad pretraining on extensive datasets using self-supervision, enabling adaptation to diverse downstream tasks through fine-tuning [5]. In materials science and drug development, these models are increasingly applied to tasks ranging from property prediction and molecular generation to synthesis planning [5] [4]. Their emergent capabilities—behaviors not explicitly programmed but arising from model scale and complexity—create both opportunities and challenges for clinical translation.

The adaptation of foundation models from materials discovery to clinical research introduces unique considerations. While materials foundation models typically operate on 2D molecular representations like SMILES or SELFIES, clinical applications must account for 3D conformational data, biological system complexity, and ultimately, human subject protection [5]. This transition necessitates specialized frameworks to address safety, privacy, and ethical implications unique to clinical research contexts.

Global Regulatory Context

Recent regulatory developments reflect growing attention to AI in clinical research. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has finalized ICH E6(R3) Good Clinical Practice guidance, introducing flexible, risk-based approaches that accommodate modern innovations in trial design and technology [101]. Internationally, regulatory bodies are issuing specialized guidance addressing AI-specific considerations in therapeutic development.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has advanced regulatory science through reflection papers on patient experience data and updated therapeutic-area guidelines that implicitly address AI integration [101]. Meanwhile, China's NMPA has implemented policy revisions to streamline clinical trials, allowing adaptive designs with real-time protocol modifications under enhanced safety oversight [101]. These evolving regulations underscore the global recognition that AI applications in clinical research require specialized governance approaches distinct from traditional pharmaceutical development.

Core Frameworks for Ethical AI Oversight in Clinical Research

MRCT Center Framework for Clinical Research Involving AI

The MRCT Center Framework, developed through a multi-stakeholder collaboration, provides institutional review boards (IRBs) and oversight entities with a structured approach to evaluating AI-involved clinical research protocols [100] [99]. This framework addresses emerging ethical and regulatory challenges including algorithmic bias, adaptive learning, data identifiability, and human oversight requirements [100].

The framework's core components include:

• Regulatory applicability decision tree: A structured tool to determine which regulations apply to specific AI-enabled studies
• Developmental stage-specific review guidance: Tailored oversight recommendations based on the maturity of the AI technology
• Targeted ethical considerations: Focused examination of unique risks and benefits associated with AI in human subjects research

This framework emphasizes consistent review processes that protect participants while promoting responsible AI innovation, helping oversight bodies navigate the complex ethical terrain presented by AI technologies in clinical studies [99].

FAIR-AI Implementation Framework

The Framework for Appropriate Implementation and Review of AI (FAIR-AI) offers health systems a practical, comprehensive approach to AI evaluation and governance [98]. Developed through literature review, stakeholder interviews, and multidisciplinary design workshops, FAIR-AI addresses the challenge of balancing innovation with safety in healthcare AI implementation.

FAIR-AI organizes best practices into several thematic areas:

Table 1: FAIR-AI Framework Core Components

Thematic Area	Key Components	Implementation Considerations
Validity	Appropriate metric selection, clinical context performance evaluation, real-world validation studies	Align validation rigor with intended use case risk and potential performance variability [98]
Usefulness	Net benefit assessment, workflow integration analysis, impact evaluation	Consider resource utilization, time savings, ease of use, and unintended consequences [98]
Transparency	Disclosure of data and methods, justification of sensitive variables, patient notification	Provide end-users with explanations of AI processes, limitations, and potential biases [98]
Equity	Subgroup performance assessment, accessibility evaluation, bias monitoring	Evaluate model performance across patient characteristics outlined in PROGRESS-Plus framework [98]

For generative AI models, where traditional validation metrics may not apply, FAIR-AI recommends qualitative evaluations including user feedback and expert reviews to assess performance, risks, and usefulness [98].

AI Governance Framework for Healthcare Organizations

Complementing these research-specific frameworks, a comprehensive AI governance framework developed through multimethod research addresses organizational-level oversight needs [102]. This framework, developed and validated through scoping reviews, stakeholder interviews, and real-world application, provides practical guidance for health systems adopting AI technologies.

The governance framework development methodology included four key stages:

• Scoping review and document analysis to identify governance needs and current processes
• In-depth interviews with healthcare stakeholders and AI governance experts
• Draft framework development through synthesis of findings
• Validation and refinement through stakeholder workshops and case study application [102]

This approach ensures the resulting governance framework addresses real-world challenges in AI oversight, including data quality requirements, clinical workflow integration, and bias monitoring [102].

Data Privacy and Security Considerations

Regulatory Requirements and Vulnerabilities

Healthcare data privacy frameworks establish critical safeguards for protecting personal health information (PHI) in AI-enabled clinical research. Major regulations including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in the U.S., the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe, and emerging global standards set requirements for data anonymization, access controls, and breach notification [103]. Despite these protections, significant vulnerabilities persist.

High-profile data breaches including the Anthem Inc. breach affecting 79 million individuals, the WannaCry ransomware attack on the UK's National Health Service, and the SingHealth breach in Singapore demonstrate systemic vulnerabilities in healthcare data systems [103]. These incidents highlight that even with established regulations, technological shortcomings and security gaps can compromise PHI, necessitating enhanced protections for AI research environments.

Advanced Privacy-Enhancing Technologies

Emerging technologies offer promising approaches to addressing these vulnerabilities. Blockchain technology provides a decentralized, immutable ledger that can enhance data integrity and transparency by securely recording transactions and preventing unauthorized alterations [103]. Artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies enable real-time breach detection, predictive risk assessment, and automated compliance monitoring [103].

These technologies are particularly relevant for foundation model research in clinical contexts, where large-scale datasets are essential for training but create expanded attack surfaces. The implementation of privacy-preserving techniques such as federated learning, differential privacy, and homomorphic encryption can help balance the data requirements of foundation models with privacy protection obligations.

Experimental Protocols and Validation Methodologies

AI Model Validation Framework

Rigorous validation is essential for ensuring AI model safety and efficacy in clinical research. The FAIR-AI framework outlines comprehensive validation requirements across multiple dimensions:

Table 2: AI Model Validation Metrics and Methodologies

Validation Type	Key Metrics	Methodological Considerations
Discrimination	AUC, F-score (for imbalanced data)	Adjust decision thresholds based on clinical context; use Decision Curve Analysis for true-false positive tradeoffs [98]
Calibration	Calibration plots, goodness-of-fit tests	Especially critical for probabilistic predictions informing clinical decisions [98]
Regression Performance	Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE)	Preferable to Mean Square Error (MSE) for clinical interpretability [98]
Real-world Performance	Dedicated validation studies assessing workflow integration	Evaluate performance in actual clinical practice environments with intended end-users [98]

Validation rigor should be commensurate with intended use case risk and the likelihood of performance variability once deployed. Higher-risk applications require more extensive validation across diverse populations and clinical settings [98].

Bias Detection and Mitigation Protocols

Given the potential for AI systems to perpetuate or amplify health disparities, comprehensive bias assessment is essential. Evaluation should include:

• Subgroup analysis: Assessing model performance across patient characteristics outlined in the PROGRESS-Plus framework (Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital) [98]
• Accessibility assessment: Determining whether the AI system is equally accessible to all who might benefit
• Variable justification: Providing clear rationale for including variables historically associated with discrimination

Ongoing monitoring for algorithmic drift and performance degradation across subgroups is necessary throughout the AI system lifecycle, particularly for adaptive learning systems that may evolve in unexpected ways [98].

Implementation Workflow and Oversight Processes

The following diagram illustrates the integrated oversight workflow for AI-enabled clinical research, combining elements from the MRCT Center Framework, FAIR-AI, and governance requirements:

This integrated workflow emphasizes the continuous nature of AI oversight, with feedback mechanisms ensuring that post-implementation findings inform protocol modifications and revalidation requirements. The process highlights critical decision points including human oversight mechanisms, patient notification obligations, and ongoing bias monitoring throughout the AI system lifecycle.

Research Reagent Solutions

Implementing AI responsibly in clinical research requires both technical and methodological "reagents." The following table outlines essential components for establishing a robust AI research infrastructure:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for AI Clinical Research

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Components	Function/Purpose
Data Extraction & Harmonization	Named Entity Recognition (NER) systems, Vision Transformers, Plot2Spectra [5]	Extracts structured materials data from scientific literature, patents, and images; converts heterogeneous data into standardized formats for model training
Computational Infrastructure	High-performance computing resources, secure cloud-based AI environments, robotic laboratories [78]	Supports large-scale model training, simulation, and AI-directed experimentation with appropriate security controls
Model Architectures	Encoder-only models (e.g., BERT), Decoder-only models (e.g., GPT), Graph Neural Networks [5]	Provides foundation for property prediction (encoder) and molecular generation (decoder) tasks with applicability to clinical research
Validation Suites	TRIPOD-AI checklists, bias detection algorithms, subgroup analysis frameworks [98]	Standardizes performance reporting, identifies discriminatory patterns, ensures generalizability across patient populations
Privacy-Enhancing Technologies	Federated learning platforms, differential privacy tools, synthetic data generators [103] [78]	Enables model training while protecting patient privacy through distributed learning and privacy guarantees

Documentation and Reporting Standards

Comprehensive documentation is essential for regulatory compliance, reproducibility, and trust-building. Key documentation requirements include:

• Model cards detailing intended use cases, limitations, and performance characteristics
• Data sheets describing training data characteristics, preprocessing steps, and potential biases
• Algorithmic impact assessments evaluating potential effects on different patient populations
• Implementation reports documenting integration approaches, workflow modifications, and staff training

These documentation standards facilitate transparent communication between researchers, regulators, clinicians, and patients, supporting the responsible translation of AI innovations from materials research to clinical application.

The responsible deployment of AI in clinical research requires systematic frameworks that address the unique challenges posed by foundation models and their emergent capabilities. The MRCT Center Framework, FAIR-AI, and comprehensive governance approaches provide structured methodologies for ensuring safety, privacy, and ethical use while promoting innovation.

As foundation models continue to evolve beyond materials discovery into clinical applications, maintaining rigorous oversight, transparent documentation, and continuous monitoring will be essential for realizing their potential benefits while mitigating risks. By adopting these frameworks and methodologies, researchers, oversight bodies, and healthcare organizations can navigate the complex landscape of AI-enabled clinical research with appropriate safeguards for human subjects and the integrity of scientific discovery.

Conclusion

The emergence of sophisticated capabilities in materials foundation models marks a pivotal shift from incremental, task-specific AI to a general-purpose engine for scientific discovery. By unifying foundational understanding, practical application, robust troubleshooting, and rigorous validation, these models offer an unprecedented toolkit for accelerating drug development and materials design. The future of this field hinges on key advancements: scalable pre-training that incorporates 3D structural data, the development of continual learning systems to integrate new experimental results, and the establishment of strong governance frameworks to ensure reliability and ethical application in clinical settings. For biomedical researchers, the path forward involves active collaboration with AI developers to steer these powerful tools toward the most pressing human health challenges, ultimately shrinking the decade-long timelines of traditional discovery processes and unlocking novel therapeutic modalities.

References

• 1. What Are Foundation Models? [https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/foundation-models]
• 2. foundation model - Glossary | CSRC [https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/foundation_model]
• 3. What are Foundation Models? - Generative AI [https://aws.amazon.com/what-is/foundation-models/]
• 4. Foundation Models, LLM Agents, Datasets, and Tools [https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.20743]
• 5. Foundation models for materials discovery – current state ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-025-01538-0]
• 6. New tool makes generative AI models more likely to create ... [https://news.mit.edu/2025/new-tool-makes-generative-ai-models-likely-create-breakthrough-materials-0922]
• 7. IBM open sources new AI models for materials discovery [https://research.ibm.com/blog/foundation-models-for-materials]
• 8. Self-Supervised Learning by Element Shuffling for Material ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050925021842]
• 9. Leveraging unlabeled SEM datasets with self-supervised ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40995558/]
• 10. Molecular representation learning: cross-domain foundations ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/dd/d5dd00170f]
• 11. Generative molecular design and discovery on the rise [https://www.nature.com/articles/s43588-025-00802-z]
• 12. [2503.20266] Emergent properties and the multiscale ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.20266]
• 13. Ten simple rules for designing graphical abstracts - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10833524/]
• 14. 7 Best Comparison Charts for Effective Data Visualization [https://ninjatables.com/types-of-comparison-charts/?srsltid=AfmBOoq4dAeYYqCidUoy-uUrQZcwvEAQ4bkPA5Ek5axboQRpGs79EYjB]
• 15. Understanding Encoder And Decoder LLMs - Ahead of AI [https://magazine.sebastianraschka.com/p/understanding-encoder-and-decoder]
• 16. Multimodal fusion with relational learning for molecular ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-025-01586-z]
• 17. Encoder-Decoder vs. Decoder-Only [https://medium.com/@qmsoqm2/auto-regressive-vs-sequence-to-sequence-d7362eda001e]
• 18. Encoder-Decoder or Decoder-Only? Revisiting ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2510.26622v1]
• 19. Accurate predictions on small data with a tabular ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08328-6]
• 20. The End of Transformers? On Challenging Attention and ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2510.05364v1]
• 21. Byte Latent Transformer: Patches Scale Better Than Tokens [https://ai.meta.com/research/publications/byte-latent-transformer-patches-scale-better-than-tokens/]
• 22. Multi-modal Foundation Model for Scientific Discovery [https://chao1224.github.io/aaai25_fm4science_tutorial]
• 23. Recent advances in molecular representation methods and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s44386-025-00017-2]
• 24. Comparing SMILES and SELFIES tokenization for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-76440-8]
• 25. Molecular graph representations and SELFIES [https://aspuru.substack.com/p/molecular-graph-representations-and]
• 26. MolGraph-xLSTM as a graph-based dual-level ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-025-01683-z]
• 27. A simple representation of three-dimensional molecular ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6075869/]
• 28. Explainable machine learning models enhance prediction ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0043135425004130]
• 29. Emergent Abilities in Large Language Models: A Survey [https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.05788]
• 30. Computational approaches to predict the toxicity of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11811359/]
• 31. Color, Clarity, and Inclusion: What 2025 Research Tells Us [https://vibra.tools/blog/color-clarity-and-inclusion-what-2025-research-tells-us]
• 32. From Patterns to Pills: How Informatics Is Shaping Medicinal ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12114992/]
• 33. Generative AI for drug discovery and protein design [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590098625000107]
• 34. Instruction multi-constraint molecular generation using a ... [https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-025-02200-3]
• 35. The Future of Materials Science: AI, Automation, and Policy ... [https://www.mercatus.org/research/policy-briefs/future-materials-science-ai-automation-and-policy-strategies]
• 36. Multimodal Data Fusion by Combining Imaging, Clinical ... [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-95-3272-8_13]
• 37. Exploration of crystal chemical space using text-guided ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-59636-y]
• 38. XMolCap: Advancing Molecular Captioning through ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40408217/]
• 39. Materials Map Integrating Experimental and Computational ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2503.07378v1]
• 40. Materials science in the era of large language models [https://www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/article/pii/S2635098X24001190]
• 41. A Survey of AI for Materials Science: Foundation , Models ... LLM [https://arxiv.org/html/2506.20743v1]
• 42. A Vision for Auto Research with LLM Agents [https://arxiv.org/html/2504.18765v3]
• 43. LLM Agents [https://www.promptingguide.ai/research/llm-agents]
• 44. Empowering Data Extraction with LLM Agents and NER [https://ubiai.tools/empowering-data-extraction-with-llm-agents-and-named-entity-recognition/]
• 45. From single-agent to multi-agent: a comprehensive review ... [https://www.oaepublish.com/articles/aiagent.2025.06]
• 46. Comparing Different LLM Models For Data Extraction [https://lucas-mcgregor.medium.com/comparing-different-llm-models-for-data-extraction-f067d56bed54]
• 47. [2408.00764] AgentGen: Enhancing Planning Abilities for ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.00764]
• 48. Contrast Security Releases Assess Feature for LLMs to ... [https://www.contrastsecurity.com/press/contrast-security-releases-assess-feature-for-llms-to-protect-against-ai-security-threats]
• 49. MatterGen: A new paradigm of materials design with ... [https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/blog/mattergen-a-new-paradigm-of-materials-design-with-generative-ai/]
• 50. Building AI foundation models to accelerate the discovery ... [https://www.anl.gov/article/building-ai-foundation-models-to-accelerate-the-discovery-of-new-battery-materials]
• 51. Understanding AI's Role in the Future of Battery Design ... [https://www.sandboxaq.com/post/understanding-ais-role-in-the-future-of-battery-design-and-innovation]
• 52. AI methods in materials design, discovery and manufacturing [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927025624000144]
• 53. Pearl: A Foundation Model for Placing Every Atom in the ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2510.24670v2]
• 54. Activity cliff-aware reinforcement learning for de novo drug ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-025-01006-3]
• 55. Descriptor-based Foundation Models for Molecular ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2506.15792v1]
• 56. Proceedings [https://cikm2025.org/program/proceedings]
• 57. In Search of Beautiful Molecules: A Perspective on Generative ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12458704/]
• 58. Machine learning enabled autonomous microstructural ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-019-0267-z]
• 59. Article Multimodal foundation models for material property ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950636025000088]
• 60. Materials Expert-Artificial Intelligence for materials discovery [https://www.nature.com/articles/s43246-025-00928-7]
• 61. 2D vs 3D Drawings: A Guide to the Differences - VMT [https://vmtcnc.com/2d-vs-3d-drawings/]
• 62. 2D vs 3D CAD Drawings: Key Differences Explained [https://shalindesigns.com/blog/difference-2d-3d-cad-drawings/]
• 63. 2D vs 3D Site Models: Which is Best for Your Project? | TOPS [https://www.takeoffpros.com/blog/using-2d-or-3d-for-your-site-models/]
• 64. MicroLad: 2D-to-3D Microstructure Reconstruction and ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2508.20138v1]
• 65. Medical Hallucination in Foundation Models and Their ... [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.02.28.25323115v2]
• 66. Hallucination (artificial intelligence) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination_(artificial_intelligence)]
• 67. On Hallucinations in Artificial Intelligence–Generated Content ... [https://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/early/2025/11/06/jnumed.125.270653]
• 68. Detecting hallucinations in large language models using ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07421-0]
• 69. Multi-model assurance analysis showing large language ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12318031/]
• 70. Robustness tests for biomedical foundation models should ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-025-01926-2]
• 71. Foundation models in medicine are a social experiment [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12357904/]
• 72. Foundation models in medicine are a social experiment [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-025-01924-4]
• 73. Safe before sale [https://www.adalovelaceinstitute.org/report/safe-before-sale/]
• 74. Scaling LLMs: The Genius of Mixture of Experts | by M [https://medium.com/foundation-models-deep-dive/scaling-llms-the-genius-of-mixture-of-experts-7647cb9a255f]
• 75. Comparing 2025's Leading Mixture-of-Experts AI Models [https://friendli.ai/blog/moe-models-comparison]
• 76. A Closer Look into Mixture-of-Experts in Large Language ... [https://aclanthology.org/2025.findings-naacl.251/]
• 77. NVIDIA Accelerated Computing Enables Materials Discovery [https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/ai-science-materials-discovery-sc25/]
• 78. Launching the Genesis Mission [https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/11/launching-the-genesis-mission/]
• 79. Supercomputing Conference 2025 [https://www.kitware.com/sc25/]
• 80. MoleculeNet: a benchmark for molecular machine learning [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5868307/]
• 81. MoleculeNet: a benchmark for molecular machine learning [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2018/sc/c7sc02664a]
• 82. An Introduction To MoleculeNet [https://deepchem.io/tutorials/an-introduction-to-moleculenet/]
• 83. MoleculeNet — deepchem 2.8.1.dev documentation [https://deepchem.readthedocs.io/en/latest/moleculenet.html]
• 84. A Record-Breaking Dataset to Train AI Models has Launched [https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2025/05/14/computational-chemistry-unlocked-a-record-breaking-dataset-to-train-ai-models-has-launched/]
• 85. MatTools: Benchmarking Large Language Models for ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.10852]
• 86. Exploring Meta's Open Molecules 2025 (OMol25) & Universal ... [https://www.rowansci.com/blog/exploring-open-molecules-2025]
• 87. Foundation Models Shift Paradigms for Engineering and ... [https://jpt.spe.org/foundation-models-shift-paradigms-for-engineering-and-energy]
• 88. Predictive Supremacy of Chemical Foundational Model for ... [https://research.ibm.com/publications/predictive-supremacy-of-chemical-foundational-model-for-battery-electrolytes]
• 89. Do batteries need medicine? [https://www.anl.gov/article/do-batteries-need-medicine]
• 90. Do Batteries Need Medicine? Argonne Researchers ... [https://finance.yahoo.com/news/batteries-medicine-argonne-researchers-enhance-185300833.html]
• 91. AI Creates Better-Performing Batteries at the Atomic Scale [https://eepower.com/tech-insights/ai-creates-better-performing-batteries-at-the-atomic-scale/]
• 92. State of Foundation Model Training Report 2025 [https://neptune.ai/state-of-foundation-model-training-report]
• 93. javascript - How to Generate Material 3 Color ... - Stack Overflow [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/70323955/how-to-generate-material-3-color-palettes-in-js-scss]
• 94. Multimodal Foundation Models for Material Property Prediction and Discovery [https://arxiv.org/html/2312.00111v4]
• 95. Mind the Gap: Bridging the Divide Between AI Aspirations ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2502.18604v1]
• 96. Tutorial MT02—Large Language Models and Foundation Models for Materials Science [https://www.mrs.org/meetings-events/annual-meetings/archive/meeting/tutorial-sessions/2025-mrs-spring-meeting/tutorial-mt02-large-language-models-and-foundation-models-for-material-science-(minor-revisions-required)]
• 97. MatQnA: A Benchmark Dataset for Multi-modal Large ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.11335]
• 98. A practical framework for appropriate implementation and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12340025/]
• 99. Announcing the Framework for Review of ... [https://www.wcgclinical.com/announcing-the-framework-for-review-of-clinical-research-involving-ai-new-guidance-for-ethical-oversight/]
• 100. Framework for Review of Clinical Research Involving AI [https://mrctcenter.org/resource/framework-for-review-of-clinical-research-involving-ai/]
• 101. Regulatory Updates, September 2025 [https://www.caidya.com/resources/regulatory-updates-sept-2025/]
• 102. Developing an AI Governance Framework for Safe and ... [https://www.researchprotocols.org/2025/1/e75702]
• 103. Data privacy in healthcare: Global challenges and solutions [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12138216/]