Abolhasani, M. & Kumacheva, E. The rise of self-driving labs in chemical and materials sciences. Nat. Synth. 2, 483–492 (2023).
Google Scholar
Xie, Y., Sattari, K., Zhang, C. & Lin, J. Toward autonomous laboratories: convergence of artificial intelligence and experimental automation. Prog. Mater. Sci. 132, 101043 (2023).
Canty, R. B. et al. Science acceleration and accessibility with self-driving labs. Nat. Commun. 16, 3856 (2025).
Google Scholar
Tom, G. et al. Self-driving laboratories for chemistry and materials science. Chem. Rev. 124, 9633–9732 (2024).
Google Scholar
Maffettone, M. P. et al. What is missing in autonomous discovery: open challenges for the community. Digit. Discov. 2, 1644–1659 (2023).
Christensen, M. et al. Automation isn’t automatic. Chem. Sci. 12, 15473–15490 (2021).
Google Scholar
Zwirnmann, H., Knobbe, D., Culha, U. & Haddadin, S. Towards flexible biolaboratory automation: container taxonomy-based, 3D-Printed Gripper Fingers*. In IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, (ed. Gregg, B.) 6823–6830 (2023).
Canty, R. B., Koscher, B. A., McDonald, M. A. & Jensen, K. F. Integrating autonomy into automated research platforms. Digit. Discov. 2, 1259–1268 (2023).
Grønseth, B. O. & Madsen, D. Ø. Industry 4.0. In Encyclopedia of Tourism Management and Marketing, Vol. 2 (ed. Buhalis, D.) 683–685 (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2022).
Ghobakhloo, M. Industry 4.0, digitization, and opportunities for sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 252, 119869 (2020).
Xu, X., Lu, Y., Vogel-Heuser, B. & Wang, L. Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0—inception, conception and perception. J. Manuf. Syst. 61, 530–535 (2021).
Leng, J. et al. Industry 5.0: prospect and retrospect. J. Manuf. Syst. 65, 279–295 (2022).
MacLeod, B. P., Parlane, F. G. L., Brown, A. K., Hein, J. E. & Berlinguette, C. P. Flexible automation accelerates materials discovery. Nat. Mater. 21, 722–726 (2022).
Google Scholar
MacLeod, B. P., Parlane, F. G. L. & Berlinguette, C. P. How to build an effective self-driving laboratory. MRS Bull. 48, 173–178 (2023).
Bayley, O., Savino, E., Slattery, A. & Noël, T. Autonomous chemistry: Navigating self-driving labs in chemical and material sciences. Matter 7, 2382–2398 (2024).
Google Scholar
Darvish, K. et al. ORGANA: a robotic assistant for automated chemistry experimentation and characterization. Matter 8,101897 (2025). Demonstrates an integrated robotic chemistry assistant combining 3D vision with process sensors to execute and monitor workflows, exemplifying how robust perception underpins reliable autonomy.
Butterworth, A., Pizzuto, G., Pecyna, L., Cooper, A. I. & Luo, S. Leveraging multi-modal sensing for robotic insertion tasks in R&D laboratories. In 2023 IEEE 19th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), (ed. Aw, K.), 1–8 (IEEE, 2023). Shows how multi-modal sensing (vision/force/tactile) improves robustness in contact-rich insertion tasks, directly advancing dexterity and in-situ adaptation in lab manipulation.
Jiang, J., Cao, G., Butterworth, A., Do, T.-T. & Luo, S. Where shall I touch? Vision-guided tactile poking for transparent object grasping. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 28, 233–244 (2023).
Pai, S. et al. Precise well-plate placing utilizing contact during sliding with tactile-based pose estimation for laboratory automation. In 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) 5252–5259 (IEEE, 2024). Introduces tactile-based pose estimation for sub-millimetre well-plate placement, providing a concrete route to high-precision, failure-resistant laboratory handling.
Christensen, M. et al. Data-science driven autonomous process optimization. Commun. Chem. 4, 112 (2021).
Google Scholar
Knobbe, D., Zwirnmann, H., Eckhoff, M. & Haddadin, S. Core processes in intelligent robotic lab assistants: flexible liquid handling. In 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), (eds Wang, Z., Ando, N. & Yamanobe, N.) 2335–2342 (IEEE, 2022).
Brendel, A. et al. Laboratory and Analytical Device Standard (LADS): a communication standard based on OPC UA for networked laboratories. In Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology, (eds Beutel, S. & Lenk, F.) Vol. 182, 175–194 (2022).
Juchli, D. SiLA 2: the next generation lab automation standard. In Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology Vol. 182, 147–174 (Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH, 2022).
Mane, S., Dhote, R. R., Sinha, A. & Thirumalaiswamy, R. Digital twin in the chemical industry: a review. Digit. Twins Appl. 1, 118–130 (2024).
Rihm, S. D. et al. Transforming research laboratories with connected digital twins. Nexus. 1, 100004 (2024).
Iyer, S. V. & Sangwan, K. S. & Dhiraj. Digital twin-based virtual commissioning for evaluation and validation of a reconfigurable process line. IET Coll. Intell. Manuf. 6, e12111 (2024).
Ni, H. et al. Digital twin-driven virtual commissioning for robotic machining enhanced by machine learning. Robot Comput. Integr. Manuf. 93, 102908 (2025).
Adams, F., McDannald, A., Takeuchi, I. & Kusne, A. G. Human-in-the-loop for Bayesian autonomous materials phase mapping. Matter 7, 697–709 (2024). Illustrates a practical autonomy pattern where Bayesian experimentation is safely accelerated via human-in-the-loop oversight, clarifying how decision logic and autonomy can be staged in real labs.
Google Scholar
Biswas, A. et al. A dynamic Bayesian optimized active recommender system for curiosity-driven partially human-in-the-loop automated experiments. NPJ Comput Mater. 10, 29 (2024).
Yewale, A. et al. Deep reinforcement learning-based self-optimization of flow chemistry. ACS Eng. Au 5, 247–266 (2025). Demonstrates reinforcement-learning-driven self-optimisation in flow chemistry, highlighting how learning can reduce manual tuning and adapt control policies to process variability.
Google Scholar
Little, J. N. The Zymate laboratory automation systems. J. Liq. Chromatogr. 9, 3197–3201 (1986).
Frisbee, A. R., Nantz, M. H., Kramer, G. W. & Fuchs, P. L. Laboratory automation. 1: syntheses via vinyl sulfones. 14. Robotic orchestration of organic reactions: yield optimization via an automated system with operator specified reaction sequences. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 106, 7143–7145 (1984).
Google Scholar
Bai, J. et al. From platform to knowledge graph: evolution of laboratory automation. JACS Au 2, 292–309 (2022).
Google Scholar
Wolf, Á et al. Towards robotic laboratory automation Plug & Play: the “LAPP” framework. SLAS Technol. 27, 18–25 (2022).
Google Scholar
Rafael Vescovi et al. Towards a modular architecture for science factories. Digit. Discov. 2, 1980–1998 (2023).
Kadokawa, Y., Hamaya, M. & Tanaka, K. Learning robotic powder weighing from simulation for laboratory automation. In 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), (ed. Gregg, B.) 2932–2939 (IEEE, 2023). Shows simulation-trained policies transferring to real robotic powder weighing, evidencing a scalable route to adaptable handling across materials and target masses.
Yoshikawa, N. et al. Large language models for chemistry robotics. Auton. Robots 47, 1057–1086 (2023).
Song, T. et al. A multiagent-driven robotic AI chemist enabling autonomous chemical research on demand. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 147, 12534–12545 (2025). Presents a multi-agent architecture that coordinates planning and execution across automated resources, exemplifying system-level task complexity management for autonomous lab operation.
Google Scholar
Jiang, Y. et al. Autonomous biomimetic solid dispensing using a dual-arm robotic manipulator. Digit. Discov. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3DD00075C (2023). Demonstrates autonomous solid dispensing with dual-arm manipulation, addressing a core bottleneck in lab robotics where dexterous, repeatable handling is essential.
Yoshikawa, N. et al. Chemistry lab automation via constrained task and motion planning. https://acrad.github.io/robot-chemist-tamp/ (2022).
Oldenburg, K. R. Automation basics: robotics vs. workstations. J. Biomol. Screen 4, 53–56 (1999).
Elands, J. The evolution of laboratory automation. In Handbook of Drug Screening, (eds Seethala, R. & Fernandes, P. B.) 498–513 (CRC Press, 2001).
Gecks, W. & Pedersen, S. T. Robotics—an efficient tool for laboratory automation. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 28, 938–944 (1992).
Ahmed, N. & Sowmya, A. AutoLab: a robotics solution for flexible laboratory automation. In Intelligent Robots and Computer Vision XIII: 3D Vision, Product Inspection, and Active Vision Vol. 2354 (ed. Casasent, D. P.) 205–214 (SPIE, 1994).
Sparkes, A. et al. Towards robot scientists for autonomous scientific discovery. Autom. Exp. 2, 1–11 (2010).
Google Scholar
King, R. D. et al. The automation of science. Science (1979) 324, 85–89 (2009).
Google Scholar
Williams, K. et al. Cheaper faster drug development validated by the repositioning of drugs against neglected tropical diseases. J. R. Soc. Interface 12, 20141289 (2015).
Google Scholar
King, R. D., Schuler Costa, V., Mellingwood, C. & Soldatova, L. N. Automating sciences: philosophical and social dimensions. IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag. 37, 40–46 (2018).
MacLeod, B. P. et al. Self-driving laboratory for accelerated discovery of thin-film materials. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz8867 (2020). A landmark self-driving lab that closes the loop between models and experiments for thin-film discovery, illustrating how autonomy can accelerate materials optimisation campaigns.
Coley, C. W. et al. A robotic platform for flow synthesis of organic compounds informed by AI planning. Science 365, eaax1566 (2019). Integrates AI-driven synthesis planning with robotic execution in flow, demonstrating an end-to-end pipeline from computational intent to physical chemistry outcomes.
Nambiar, A. M. K. et al. Bayesian optimization of computer-proposed multistep synthetic routes on an automated robotic flow platform. ACS Cent. Sci. 8, 825–836 (2022).
Google Scholar
MacLeod, B. P. et al. A self-driving laboratory advances the Pareto front for material properties. Nat. Commun. 13, 995 (2022).
Google Scholar
Szymanski, N. J. et al. An autonomous laboratory for the accelerated synthesis of novel materials. Nature 624, 1–6 (2023). Demonstrates autonomous materials synthesis with tight experiment–analysis coupling, providing a high-impact reference point for scalable closed-loop laboratory operation.
Dembski, S. et al. Establishing and testing a robot-based platform to enable the automated production of nanoparticles in a flexible and modular way. Sci. Rep. 13, 1–10 (2023).
Slattery, A. et al. Automated self-optimization, intensification, and scale-up of photocatalysis in flow. Science 383, eadj1817 (2024).
Fleischer, H. et al. Automated robotic system for sample preparation and measurement of heavy metals in indoor dust using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). Adv. Sci. Technol. Eng. Syst. J. 7, 139–151 (2022).
Ozgulbas, D. Y. et al. Robotic pendant drop: containerless liquid for μs-resolved, AI-executable XPCS. Light Sci. Appl 12, 1–10 (2023).
Zhao, H. et al. A robotic platform for the synthesis of colloidal nanocrystals. Nat. Synth. 2, 505–514 (2023).
Google Scholar
Koscher, B. A. et al. Autonomous, multiproperty-driven molecular discovery: from predictions to measurements and back. Science 382, eadi1407 (2023). Shows autonomous molecular discovery that iterates between prediction and measurement under multiple objectives, illustrating how autonomy supports complex, data-driven optimisation.
Volk, A. A. & Abolhasani, M. Performance metrics to unleash the power of self-driving labs in chemistry and materials science. Nat. Commun. 15, 1–7 (2024).
Hysmith, H. et al. The future of self-driving laboratories: from human in the loop interactive AI to gamification. Digit. Discov. 3, 621–636 (2024).
Wolf, Á., Zsoldos, P., Széll, K. & Galambos, P. Towards robotic laboratory automation plug & play: reference architecture model for robot integration. SLAS Technol. 100168 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SLAST.2024.100168 (2024).
Busboom, A. Automated generation of OPC UA information models—a review and outlook. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 39, 100602 (2024).
Hornsteiner, M., Empl, P., Bunghardt, T. & Schönig, S. Reading between the lines: process mining on OPC UA network data. Sensors 24, 4497 (2024).
Google Scholar
Trifonov, H. & Heffernan, D. OPC UA TSN: a next-generation network for Industry 4.0 and IIoT. Int. J. Pervasive Comput. Commun. 19, 386–411 (2023).
Fedullo, T., Morato, A., Tramarin, F., Rovati, L. & Vitturi, S. A comprehensive review on time sensitive networks with a special focus on its applicability to industrial smart and distributed measurement systems. Sensors 22, 1638 (2022).
Google Scholar
Leeming, R. et al. Development of a digital twin for the prediction and control of supersaturation during batch cooling crystallization. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 62, 11067–11081 (2023).
Google Scholar
Szilágyi, B., Eren, A., Quon, J. L., Papageorgiou, C. D. & Nagy, Z. K. Digital design of the crystallization of an active pharmaceutical ingredient using a population balance model with a novel size dependent growth rate expression. From development of a digital twin to in silico optimization and experimental validation. Cryst. Growth Des. 22, 497–512 (2021).
Barhate, Y., Kilari, H., Wu, W. L. & Nagy, Z. K. Population balance model enabled digital design and uncertainty analysis framework for continuous crystallization of pharmaceuticals using an automated platform with full recycle and minimal material use. Chem. Eng. Sci. 287, 119688 (2024).
Google Scholar
Parekh, R., Benyahia, B. & Rielly, C. D. A global state feedback linearization and decoupling MPC of a MIMO continuous MSMPR cooling crystallization process. Comput. Aided Chem. Eng. 43, 1607–1612 (2018).
Google Scholar
Urwin, S. J. et al. Digital process design to define and deliver pharmaceutical particle attributes. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 196, 726–749 (2023).
Google Scholar
Yuan, X., Nagy, Z. K. & Benyahia, B. A comprehensive framework for model evaluation and refinement using MBDoE estimability and structural identifiability: application to a crystallization process. Chem. Eng. J. Adv. 23, 100823 (2025).
Google Scholar
Lo, S. et al. Review of low-cost self-driving laboratories in chemistry and materials science: the “frugal twin” concept. Digit. Discov. 3, 842–868 (2024).
Wolf, Á, Romeder-Finger, S., Széll, K. & Galambos, P. Towards robotic laboratory automation Plug & play: survey and concept proposal on teaching-free robot integration with the Lapp digital twin. SLAS Technol. 28, 82–88 (2023).
Google Scholar
Bai, J. et al. A dynamic knowledge graph approach to distributed self-driving laboratories. Nat. Commun. 15, 1–14 (2024).
Google Scholar
Dai, T. et al. Autonomous mobile robots for exploratory synthetic chemistry. Nature 635, 890–897 (2024).
Google Scholar
Kroemer, O., Niekum, S. & Konidaris, G. A review of robot learning for manipulation: challenges, representations, and algorithms. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 22, 1–82 (2020).
Tang, C. et al. Deep reinforcement learning for robotics: a survey of real-world successes. Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 8, 153–188 (2025).
Google Scholar
Wu, J., Jin, Z., Liu, A., Yu, L. & Yang, F. A survey of learning-based control of robotic visual servoing systems. J. Frankl. Inst. 359, 556–577 (2022).
Radulov, N., Wright, A., Little, T., Cooper, A. I. & Pizzuto, G. FLIP: flowability-informed powder weighing. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.03896 (2025).
Angelopoulos, A., Verber, M., McKinney, C., Cahoon, J. & Alterovitz, R. High-accuracy injection using a mobile manipulation robot for chemistry lab automation. In 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), (ed. Gregg, B.) 10102–10109 (IEEE, 2023).
Mazumder, A. et al. Towards next generation digital twin in robotics: Trends, scopes, challenges, and future. Heliyon 9, e13359 (2023).
Google Scholar
Qian, J. et al. Digital Twin for Chemical Science: a case study on water interactions on the Ag(111) surface. Nat. Comput Sci. 5, 793–800 (2025).
Google Scholar
Xie, Z., Liang, X. & Roberto, C. Learning-based robotic grasping: a review. Front. Robot. AI 10, 1038658 (2023).
Google Scholar
Suomalainen, M., Karayiannidis, Y. & Kyrki, V. A survey of robot manipulation in contact. Rob. Auton. Syst. 156, 104224 (2022).
AboZaid, Y. A., Aboelrayat, M. T., Fahim, I. S. & Radwan, A. G. Soft robotic grippers: a review on technologies, materials, and applications. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 372, 115380 (2024).
Google Scholar
Mao, Q., Liao, Z., Yuan, J. & Zhu, R. Multimodal tactile sensing fused with vision for dexterous robotic housekeeping. Nat. Commun. 15, 6871 (2024).
Google Scholar
Haddadin, S. & Shahriari, E. Unified force-impedance control. Int. J. Robot. Res. 43, 2112–2141 (2024).
Walker, M., Pizzuto, G., Fakhruldeen, H. & Cooper, A. I. Go with the flow: deep learning methods for autonomous viscosity estimations. Digit. Discov. 2, 1540–1547 (2023).
Google Scholar
Pizzuto, G., De Berardinis, J., Longley, L., Fakhruldeen, H. & Cooper, A. I. SOLIS: autonomous solubility screening using deep neural networks. In 2022 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), (eds Gori, M. & Sperduti, A.) 1–7, (IEEE, 2022).
Zhu, Q. et al. Automated synthesis of oxygen-producing catalysts from Martian meteorites by a robotic AI chemist. Nat. Synth. 3, 319–328 (2023).
Li, J. et al. AIR-Chem: authentic intelligent robotics for chemistry. J. Phys. Chem. A 122, 9142–9148 (2018).
Google Scholar
Burger, B. et al. A mobile robotic chemist. Nature 583, 237–241 (2020).
Google Scholar
Zhu, Q. et al. An all-round AI-Chemist with a scientific mind. Natl. Sci. Rev. 9, nwac190 (2022).
Ubezio, B., Ergun, S. & Zangl, H. Realistic sensor simulations for the digital twin. e i Elektrotech. Informationstech. 140, 562–571 (2023).
Al-Tawil, B., Hempel, T., Abdelrahman, A. & Al-Hamadi, A. A review of visual SLAM for robotics: evolution, properties, and future applications. Front. Robot. AI 11, 1347985 (2024).
Google Scholar
Guan, J., Hao, Y., Wu, Q., Li, S. & Fang, Y. A survey of 6DoF object pose estimation methods for different application scenarios. Sensors 24, 1076 (2024).
Google Scholar
Nakajima, Y. et al. Robotic powder grinding with audio–visual feedback for laboratory automation in materials science. In 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), (ed. Gregg, B.) 8283–8290 (IEEE, 2023).
Nakajima, Y. et al. Robotic Powder Grinding With a Soft Jig for Laboratory Automation in Material Science 2320–2326 (IEEE/RJS International, 2022).
Lunt, A. M. et al. Modular, multi-robot integration of laboratories: an autonomous workflow for solid-state chemistry. Chem. Sci. 15, 2456–2463 (2024).
Google Scholar
Jiang, J., Cao, G., Deng, J., Do, T.-T. & Luo, S. Robotic perception of transparent objects: a review. IEEE Trans. Artif. Intell. 5, 2547–2567 (2024).
Cheng, X. et al. Intelligent vision for the detection of chemistry glassware toward AI robotic chemists. Artif. Intell. Chem. 1, 100016 (2023).
Garrett, C. R. et al. Integrated task and motion planning. Annu. Rev. Control Robot. Auton. Syst. 4, 265–293 (2021).
Angelopoulos, A., Cahoon, J. F. & Alterovitz, R. Transforming science labs into automated factories of discovery. Sci. Robot. 9, 6991 (2024).
Yoshikawa, N. et al. An adaptive robotics framework for chemistry lab automation. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212.09672 (2022).
Snapp, K. L. & Brown, K. A. Driving school for self-driving labs. Digit. Discov. 2, 1620–1629 (2023).
Google Scholar
Stodden, V. et al. Enhancing reproducibility for computational methods. Science (1979) 354, 1240–1241 (2016).
Google Scholar
Wilkinson, M. D. et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3, 160018 (2016).
Google Scholar
Villani, V., Pini, F., Leali, F. & Secchi, C. Survey on human–robot collaboration in industrial settings: safety, intuitive interfaces and applications. Mechatronics 55, 248–266 (2018).
Mittelstadt, B. Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nat. Mach. Intell. 1, 501–507 (2019).
Floridi, L. & Cowls, J. A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harv. Data Sci. Rev. 1, (2019).
Gebru, T. et al. Datasheets for datasets. Commun. ACM 64, 86–92 (2021).
Urbina, M. A., Watts, A. J. R. & Reardon, E. E. Labs should cut plastic waste too. Nature 528, 479–479 (2015).
Google Scholar
Ince, M. C., Benyahia, B. & Vilé, G. Sustainability and techno-economic assessment of batch and flow chemistry in seven industrial pharmaceutical processes. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 13, 2864–2874 (2025).
Google Scholar
Liu, J., Zhang, D., Liu, Z., Guo, T. & Yan, Y. Construction of a digital twin system and dynamic scheduling simulation analysis of a flexible assembly workshops with Island layout. Sustainability 16, 8851 (2024).
Bran, M. A. et al. Augmenting large language models with chemistry tools. Nat. Mach. Intell. 6, 525–535 (2024).
Zhou, J. et al. A multi-robot-multi-task scheduling system for autonomous chemistry laboratories. Digit. Discov. 4, 636–652 (2025).
Zhu, C., Dastani, M. & Wang, S. A survey of multi-agent deep reinforcement learning with communication. Auton. Agent Multi Agent Syst. 38, 4 (2024).
Zhao, Z. et al. A survey of optimization-based task and motion planning: from classical to learning approaches. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 30, 2799–2825 (2025).
Wan, W., Kotaka, T. & Harada, K. Arranging test tubes in racks using combined task and motion planning. Rob. Auton. Syst. 147, 103918 (2022).
Orthey, A., Chamzas, C. & Kavraki, L. E. Sampling-based motion planning: a comparative review. Annu. Rev. Control Robot Auton. Syst. 7, 285–310 (2024).
Zhang, T. et al. Time-Sensitive Networking (TSN) for industrial automation: current advances and future directions. ACM Comput Surv. 57, 1–38 (2025).
Google Scholar
Tsiotras, P., Gombolay, M. & Foerster, J. Editorial: Decision-making and planning for multi-agent systems. Front. Robot. AI 11, 1422344 (2024).
Google Scholar
Shakeri, Z., Benfriha, K., Varmazyar, M., Talhi, E. & Quenehen, A. Production scheduling with multi-robot task allocation in a real industry 4.0 setting. Sci. Rep. 15, 1795 (2025).
Google Scholar
Gao, S. et al. Empowering biomedical discovery with AI agents. Cell 187, 6125–6151 (2024).
Google Scholar
Jin, P., Lin, Y., Song, Y., Li, T. & Yang, W. Vision-force-fused curriculum learning for robotic contact-rich assembly tasks. Front. Neurorobot. 17, 1280773 (2023).
Google Scholar
Hwang, P.-J., Hsu, C.-C., Chou, P.-Y., Wang, W.-Y. & Lin, C.-H. Vision-based learning from demonstration system for robot arms. Sensors 22, 2678 (2022).
Google Scholar
Barekatain, A., Habibi, H. & Voos, H. A practical roadmap to learning from demonstration for robotic manipulators in manufacturing. Robotics 13, 100 (2024).
Yang, X., Zhou, Z., Li, L. & Zhang, X. Collaborative robot dynamics with physical human–robot interaction and parameter identification with PINN. Mech. Mach. Theory 189, 105439 (2023).
Iliuţă, M.-E. et al. Digital Twin—a review of the evolution from concept to technology and its analytical perspectives on applications in various fields. Appl. Sci. 14, 5454 (2024).
Nambiar, S., Paul, R. C., Ikechukwu, O. C., Jonsson, M. & Tarkian, M. Digital twin-enabled adaptive robotics: leveraging large language models in Isaac Sim for unstructured environments. Machines 13, 620 (2025).
Callari, T. C., Vecellio Segate, R., Hubbard, E.-M., Daly, A. & Lohse, N. An ethical framework for human–robot collaboration for the future people-centric manufacturing: a collaborative endeavour with European subject-matter experts in ethics. Technol. Soc. 78, 102680 (2024).
Haney, J. M. & Liang, C. J. A literature review on safety perception and trust during human–robot interaction with autonomous mobile robots that apply to industrial environments. IISE Trans. Occup. Ergon. Hum. Factors 12, 6–27 (2024).
Google Scholar
Balakrishnan, M., Ferreira, K. J. & Tong, J. Human–algorithm collaboration with private information: naïve advice-weighting behavior and mitigation. Manage. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.03850 (2025).
Sanders, N. E., Şener, E. & Chen, K. B. Robot-related injuries in the workplace: an analysis of OSHA severe injury reports. Appl. Erg. 121, 104324 (2024).
Gunes, H. et al. Reproducibility in human–robot interaction: furthering the science of HRI. Curr. Robot. Rep. 3, 281–292 (2022).
Google Scholar
Faragasso, A. & Bonsignorio, F. Reproducibility challenges in robotic surgery. Front. Robot. AI 10, 1127972 (2023).
Google Scholar
Senoner, J., Schallmoser, S., Kratzwald, B., Feuerriegel, S. & Netland, T. Explainable AI improves task performance in human–AI collaboration. Sci. Rep. 14, 31150 (2024).
Google Scholar
Brunke, L. et al. Safe learning in robotics: from learning-based control to safe reinforcement learning. Annu. Rev. Control Robot Auton. Syst. 5, 411–444 (2022).
Häse, F., Roch, L. M. & Aspuru-Guzik, A. Next-generation experimentation with self-driving laboratories. Trends Chem. 1, 282–291 (2019).
Granda, J. M., Donina, L., Dragone, V., Long, D.-L. & Cronin, L. Controlling an organic synthesis robot with machine learning to search for new reactivity. Nature 559, 377–381 (2018).
Google Scholar
Maffettone, P. M., Campbell, S., Hanwell, M. D., Wilkins, S. & Olds, D. Delivering real-time multi-modal materials analysis with enterprise beamlines. Cell Rep. Phys. Sci. 3, 101112 (2022).
