Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
We review recent machine learning (ML) approaches for point defects in non-metallic materials, with an emphasis on defect formation energies. Existing studies largely fall into two categories: direct ML models that predict defect energies from local structural representations, and ML potentials that approximate the defect-containing potential energy surface. We summarize key achievements as well as persistent bottlenecks, emphasizing that dataset quality often dominates practical model performance. We further identify charged-defect formation energies as a central frontier, where Fermi-level alignment, finite-size corrections, and long-range electrostatics must be handled carefully and consistently to enable meaningful comparisons and transferable predictions across different materials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kumagai et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: