Adrian E. Roitberg

dblp:58/3069 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 since 2021Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
2 papers
Computational science and engineering · 100%
Artificial intelligence
2 papers
Generative modeling · 100%

Topics — the 7 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Generative modeling › generative model › continuous-time generative model
stochastic interpolants
0.912025
Open Materials Generation with Stochastic Interpolants · ICML 2025
Computational science and engineering › materials science
crystal structure prediction
0.912025
All that structure matches does not glitter · NeurIPS 2025
Computational science and engineering › materials science
materials discovery
0.912025
Open Materials Generation with Stochastic Interpolants · ICML 2025
Computational science and engineering
materials science
0.912025
All that structure matches does not glitter · NeurIPS 2025
Machine learning › Generative modeling
diffusion model
0.312025
Open Materials Generation with Stochastic Interpolants · ICML 2025
Machine learning › Generative modeling
flow matching
0.312025
Open Materials Generation with Stochastic Interpolants · ICML 2025
Machine learning › Generative modeling
generative model evaluation
0.312025
All that structure matches does not glitter · NeurIPS 2025

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

polymorph-aware data splitting · 1.7match rate metric correction · 1.7equivariant graph neural network · 1.7discrete flow matching · 1.7deduplication · 1.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Open Materials Generation with Stochastic Interpolants
abstract
The discovery of new materials is essential for enabling technological advancements. Computational approaches for predicting novel materials must effectively learn the manifold of stable crystal structures within an infinite design space. We introduce Open Materials Generation (OMatG), a unifying framework for the generative design and discovery of inorganic crystalline materials. OMatG employs stochastic interpolants (SI) to bridge an arbitrary base distribution to the target distribution of inorganic crystals via a broad class of tunable stochastic processes, encompassing both diffusion models and flow matching as special cases. In this work, we adapt the SI framework by integrating an equivariant graph representation of crystal structures and extending it to account for periodic boundary conditions in unit cell representations. Additionally, we couple the SI flow over spatial coordinates and lattice vectors with discrete flow matching for atomic species. We benchmark OMatG’s performance on two tasks: Crystal Structure Prediction (CSP) for specified compositions, and de novo generation (DNG) aimed at discovering stable, novel, and unique structures. In our ground-up implementation of OMatG, we refine and extend both CSP and DNG metrics compared to previous works. OMatG establishes a new state of the art in generative modeling for materials discovery, outperforming purely flow-based and diffusion-based implementations. These results underscore the importance of designing flexible deep learning frameworks to accelerate progress in materials science. The OMatG code is available at https://github.com/FERMat-ML/OMatG.
Philipp Höllmer, Thomas Egg, Maya M. Martirossyan, Eric Fuemmeler, Zeren Shui, Pawan Prakash, Adrian E. Roitberg, George Karypis, Mark K. Transtrum, Richard G. Hennig, Ellad B. Tadmor, Stefano Martiniani
ICML8
2025 All that structure matches does not glitter
abstract
Generative models for materials, especially inorganic crystals, hold potential to transform the theoretical prediction of novel compounds and structures. Advancement in this field depends critically on robust benchmarks and minimal, information-rich datasets that enable meaningful model evaluation. This paper critically examines common datasets and reported metrics for a crystal structure prediction task—generating the most likely structures given the chemical composition of a material. We focus on three key issues: First, materials datasets should contain unique crystal structures; for example, we show that the widely-utilized carbon-24 dataset only contains $\approx 40$% unique structures. Second, materials datasets should not be split randomly if polymorphs of many different compositions are numerous—which we find to be the case for the perov-5 and MP-20 datasets. Third, benchmarks can mislead if used uncritically, e.g., reporting a match rate metric without considering the structural variety exhibited by identical building blocks. To address these oft-overlooked issues, we introduce several fixes. We provide revised versions of the carbon-24 dataset: one with duplicates removed, one deduplicated and split by number of atoms $N$, one with enantiomorphs, and two containing only identical structures but with different unit cells. We also propose new splits for datasets with polymorphs, ensuring that polymorphs are grouped within each split subset, setting a more sensible standard for benchmarking model performance. Finally, we present METRe and cRMSE, new model evaluation metrics that can correct existing issues with the match rate metric.
Maya M. Martirossyan, Thomas Egg, Philipp Höllmer, George Karypis, Mark K. Transtrum, Adrian E. Roitberg, Richard G. Hennig, Ellad B. Tadmor, Stefano Martiniani
NeurIPS6
2012 pH-Dependent Conformational Changes in Proteins and Their Effect on Experimental pKas: The Case of Nitrophorin 4
abstract
The acid-base behavior of amino acids is an important subject of study due to their prominent role in enzyme catalysis, substrate binding and protein structure. Due to interactions with the protein environment, their pK(a)s can be shifted from their solution values and, if a protein has two stable conformations, it is possible for a residue to have different "microscopic", conformation-dependent pK(a) values. In those cases, interpretation of experimental measurements of the pK(a) is complicated by the coupling between pH, protonation state and protein conformation. We explored these issues using Nitrophorin 4 (NP4), a protein that releases NO in a pH sensitive manner. At pH 5.5 NP4 is in a closed conformation where NO is tightly bound, while at pH 7.5 Asp30 becomes deprotonated, causing the conformation to change to an open state from which NO can easily escape. Using constant pH molecular dynamics we found two distinct microscopic Asp30 pK(a)s: 8.5 in the closed structure and 4.3 in the open structure. Using a four-state model, we then related the obtained microscopic values to the experimentally observed "apparent" pK(a), obtaining a value of 6.5, in excellent agreement with experimental data. This value must be interpreted as the pH at which the closed to open population transition takes place. More generally, our results show that it is possible to relate microscopic structure dependent pKa values to experimentally observed ensemble dependent apparent pK(a)s and that the insight gained in the relatively simple case of NP4 can be useful in several more complex cases involving a pH dependent transition, of great biochemical interest.
Natali V. Di Russo, Dario A. Estrin, Marcelo A. Marti, Adrian E. Roitberg
PLoS Comput. Biol.4