Cited by 173Machine Learning in Materials ScienceAdvanced Physical and Chemical Molecular InteractionsModel Reduction and Neural Networks

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 112 of the 112 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 68 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Unsupervised machine learning in atomistic simulations, between predictions and understanding

Open access
Ceriotti, Michele·2019·The Journal of Chemical Physics

Abstract

Automated analyses of the outcome of a simulation have been an important part of atomistic modeling since the early days, addressing the need of linking the behavior of individual atoms and the collective properties that are usually the final quantity of interest. Methods such as clustering and dimensionality reduction have been used to provide a simplified, coarse-grained representation of the structure and dynamics of complex systems from proteins to nanoparticles. In recent years, the rise of machine learning has led to an even more widespread use of these algorithms in atomistic modeling and to consider different classification and inference techniques as part of a coherent toolbox of data-driven approaches. This perspective briefly reviews some of the unsupervised machine-learning methods—that are geared toward classification and coarse-graining of molecular simulations—seen in relation to the fundamental mathematical concepts that underlie all machine-learning techniques. It discusses the importance of using concise yet complete representations of atomic structures as the starting point of the analyses and highlights the risk of introducing preconceived biases when using machine learning to rationalize and understand structure-property relations. Supervised machine-learning techniques that explicitly attempt to predict the properties of a material given its structure are less susceptible to such biases. Current developments in the field suggest that using these two classes of approaches side-by-side and in a fully integrated mode, while keeping in mind the relations between the data analysis framework and the fundamental physical principles, will be key to realizing the full potential of machine learning to help understand the behavior of complex molecules and materials.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This perspective reviews unsupervised machine-learning methods for atomistic simulations—clustering and dimensionality reduction—and argues they are powerful but strongly dependent on structural representations and hyperparameter choices. It recommends validating and optimizing unsupervised analyses through supervised learning tasks to reduce preconceived biases and improve understanding of structure–property relations.

Key findings

  • Unsupervised schemes such as clustering and dimensionality reduction can identify structural motifs and coarse-grained states, but their outcome depends crucially on the feature space, metric, or kernel; non-linear transformations can split, merge, create, or destroy local maxima in the probability distribution.
  • The paper states that for real data there is no “ground truth” for what partitioning or low-dimensional representation is best, and analyses often require human intervention in algorithm design and hyperparameter tuning, risking tuning until results match expectations.
  • Supervised learning can provide objective metrics for unsupervised representations: checking how accurately a property can be predicted, analyzing learning curves, optimizing hyperparameters, and benchmarking order parameters against the committor in biomolecular simulations.
  • The paper argues that combining supervised and unsupervised approaches side-by-side is key, with examples including Markov-state models, materials cartography, accelerated sampling, and structure searches; no original numerical results are reported.

Methods

  • Perspective/review article; no new primary data, simulations, or experiments are reported.
  • Reviews mathematical foundations of representations, distances/kernels, clustering, dimensionality reduction, and applications in atomistic modeling.
  • Synthesizes literature and author opinion rather than performing a systematic quantitative meta-analysis.

Limitations

  • The paper states that unsupervised learning lacks ground truth for real data and is sensitive to representation and hyperparameters; manual intervention can introduce preconceived biases.
  • The paper states that supervised validation is proposed as a mitigation, but this is presented as the author’s opinion and not as a fully solved problem.
  • Evident from the text: as a perspective, it provides no new numerical benchmarks or empirical validation, and its conclusions are based on literature synthesis and the author’s viewpoint.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1063/1.5091842

Cites

112 of 112 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 68 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 30 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 14
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 30
36 of 36
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In biomolecular simulations, entropically-stabilized states are the norm rather than the exception.

    “particularly in the case of biomolecular simulations in which entropically-stabilized states are the norm rather than the exception.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In crystalline materials with few defects, local minima on the potential energy surface unequivocally identify the meta-stable states of the system.

    “This is because in crystalline materials with few defects local minima on the potential energy surface unequivocally identify the meta-stable states of the system.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The most relevant degrees of freedom for a system are those in which the dynamics are slower.

    “It is often the case, however, that the most relevant degrees of freedom for a system are those in which the dynamics are slower.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The complexity of simulations is increasing for materials, chemical and biomolecular applications.

    “as the complexity of simulations is increasing for materials, chemical and biomolecular applications.”
4 of 4

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • PCA input vectors are described as d-dimensional

    Minor

    The text defines x_i as a D-dimensional input vector and s_i as its d-dimensional principal-component representation. It later calls the x_i vectors d-dimensional.

  • LLE discussion points to the wrong figure panel

    Minor

    The LLE discussion points to Fig. 4c, but the caption assigns local-relation-preserving embedding methods to Fig. 4d; Fig. 4c is assigned to multidimensional scaling.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 110 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. 2016, The God Delusion
  2. 2011, Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning (Information Science and Statistics)
  3. 2006, Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning
  4. 2003, Energy Landscapes: Applications to Clusters, Biomolecules and Glasses
  5. H. Huo and M.Rupp, e-print arxiv:1704.06439 (2017). · arXiv
  6. 2010, Multidimensional Scaling
  7. 2008, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 9, 2579

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–173 of 173

Metadata

Authors
Ceriotti, M.
Affiliations
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (CH)
Corresponding author
Ceriotti, Michele
Venue
The Journal of Chemical Physics
Published
2019-04-19
Volume
150
Issue
15
Pages
150901-150901
ISSN
  • 0021-9606 (ISSN-L)
  • 1089-7690
OpenAlex
W2924564326
Cited by
173
References
110
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 14
FWCI
8.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Chemical Physics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
H2020 European Research Council (677013-HBMAP)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Physical and Theoretical Chemistry › Advanced Physical and Chemical Molecular Interactions
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Model Reduction and Neural Networks
Keywords
unsupervised learning, atomistic simulation, molecular dynamics, clustering, dimensionality reduction, coarse-graining, structure-property relationships, machine learning bias, structure representation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review