Perspective on utilizing foundation models for laboratory automation in materials research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review explores the potential of foundation models to advance laboratory automation in the materials and chemical sciences. We highlight their dual roles within experimental systems, spanning high-level cognitive activities – such as experimental planning, data analysis, and decision-making – and low-level physical operations involving hardware control, sensor integration, and robotic manipulation. While traditional laboratory automation has relied heavily on specialized, rigid systems, foundation models offer adaptability through their general-purpose intelligence and multimodal capabilities. Recent advancements have demonstrated the feasibility of using large language models (LLMs) and multimodal robotic systems to handle complex and dynamic laboratory tasks. However, significant challenges remain, including precision manipulation of hardware, integration of multimodal data, and ensuring operational safety. This paper outlines a roadmap highlighting future directions, advocating for close interdisciplinary collaboration, benchmark establishment, and strategic human-AI integration to realize fully autonomous experimental laboratories.IMPACT STATEMENTThis review explores using foundation models in materials and chemical sciences laboratory automation, highlighting cognitive and physical capabilities, adaptability, remaining challenges, and a roadmap for interdisciplinary collaboration and benchmarks.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".