The rise of self-driving labs in chemical and materials sciences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accelerating the discovery of new molecules and materials, as well as developing green and sustainable ways to synthesize them, will help to address global challenges in energy, sustainability and healthcare. The recent growth of data science and automated experimentation techniques has resulted in the advent of self-driving labs (SDLs) via the integration of machine learning, lab automation and robotics. An SDL is a machine-learning-assisted modular experimental platform that iteratively operates a series of experiments selected by the machine learning algorithm to achieve a user-defined objective. These intelligent robotic assistants help researchers to accelerate the pace of fundamental and applied research through rapid exploration of the chemical space. In this Review, we introduce SDLs and provide a roadmap for their implementation by non-expert scientists. We present the status quo of successful SDL implementations in the field and discuss their current limitations and future opportunities to accelerate finding solutions for societal needs. Self-driving labs (SDLs) combine machine learning with automated experimental platforms, enabling rapid exploration of the chemical space and accelerating the pace of materials and molecular discovery. In this Review, the application of SDLs, their limitations and future opportunities are discussed, and a roadmap is provided for their implementation by non-expert scientists.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".