Large language models for chemistry robotics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper proposes an approach to automate chemistry experiments using robots by translating natural language instructions into robot-executable plans, using large language models together with task and motion planning. Adding natural language interfaces to autonomous chemistry experiment systems lowers the barrier to using complicated robotics systems and increases utility for non-expert users, but translating natural language experiment descriptions from users into low-level robotics languages is nontrivial. Furthermore, while recent advances have used large language models to generate task plans, reliably executing those plans in the real world by an embodied agent remains challenging. To enable autonomous chemistry experiments and alleviate the workload of chemists, robots must interpret natural language commands, perceive the workspace, autonomously plan multi-step actions and motions, consider safety precautions, and interact with various laboratory equipment. Our approach, CLAIRify , combines automatic iterative prompting with program verification to ensure syntactically valid programs in a data-scarce domain-specific language that incorporates environmental constraints. The generated plan is executed through solving a constrained task and motion planning problem using PDDLStream solvers to prevent spillages of liquids as well as collisions in chemistry labs. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach in planning chemistry experiments, with plans successfully executed on a real robot using a repertoire of robot skills and lab tools. Specifically, we showcase the utility of our framework in pouring skills for various materials and two fundamental chemical experiments for materials synthesis: solubility and recrystallization. Further details about CLAIRify can be found at https://ac-rad.github.io/clairify/ .
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.005 |
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".