Reinforcement Learning for Industrial Automation: A Comprehensive Review of Adaptive Control and Decision-Making in Smart Factories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The accelerating integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Industrial Automation has established Reinforcement Learning (RL) as a transformative paradigm for adaptive control, intelligent optimization, and autonomous decision-making in smart factories. Despite the growing literature, existing reviews often emphasize algorithmic performance or domain-specific applications, neglecting broader links between methodological evolution, technological maturity, and industrial readiness. To address this gap, this study presents a bibliometric review mapping the development of RL and Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) research in Industrial Automation and robotics. Following the PRISMA 2020 protocol to guide the data collection procedures and inclusion criteria, 672 peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2017 and 2026 were retrieved from Scopus, ensuring high-quality, interdisciplinary coverage. Quantitative bibliometric analyses were conducted in R using Bibliometrix and Biblioshiny, including co-authorship, co-citation, keyword co-occurrence, and thematic network analyses, to reveal collaboration patterns, influential works, and emerging research trends. Results indicate that 42% of studies employed DRL, 27% focused on Multi-Agent RL (MARL), and 31% relied on classical RL, with applications concentrated in robotic control (33%), process optimization (28%), and predictive maintenance (19%). However, only 22% of the studies reported real-world or pilot implementations, highlighting persistent challenges in scalability, safety validation, interpretability, and deployment readiness. By integrating a review with bibliometric mapping, this study provides a comprehensive taxonomy and a strategic roadmap linking theoretical RL research with practical industrial applications. This roadmap is structured across four critical dimensions: (1) Algorithmic Development (e.g., safe, explainable, and data-efficient RL), (2) Integration Technologies (e.g., digital twins and IoT), (3) Validation Maturity (from simulation to real-world pilots), and (4) Human-Centricity (addressing trust, collaboration, and workforce transition). These insights can guide researchers, engineers, and policymakers in developing scalable, safe, and human-centric RL solutions, prioritizing research directions, and informing the implementation of Industry 5.0–aligned intelligent automation systems emphasizing transparency, sustainability, and operational resilience.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".