Reinforcement Learning for Industrial Automation: A Comprehensive Review of Adaptive Control and Decision-Making in Smart Factories
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it