Next Article in Journal
Fault Estimation for Semi-Markov Jump Neural Networks Based on the Extended State Method
Previous Article in Journal
Optimization and Machine Learning in Modeling Approaches to Hybrid Energy Balance to Improve Ports’ Efficiency
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Helping Hand: A Survey About AI-Driven Experimental Design for Accelerating Scientific Research

Intelligent Systems, Kiel University, Hermann-Rodewald-Straße 3, 24118 Kiel, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(9), 5208; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15095208
Submission received: 20 March 2025 / Revised: 27 April 2025 / Accepted: 1 May 2025 / Published: 7 May 2025

Abstract

:
Designing and conducting experiments is a fundamental process across various scientific disciplines, such as materials science, biology, medicine, and chemistry. However, experimental research still predominantly relies on traditional, time-consuming, resource-intensive, and costly trial-and-error experimentation approaches that hinder rapid discovery, reproducibility, and scalability. Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) offer promising alternatives, but a comprehensive overview of their implementations in experimental design is lacking. This research fills this gap by providing a structured overview and analysis of existing frameworks for AI-driven experimental design, supporting researchers in selecting and developing suitable AI-driven approaches to automate and accelerate their experimental research. Moreover, it discusses the current limitations and challenges of AI techniques and ethical issues related to AI-driven experimental design frameworks. A search and filter strategy is developed and applied to appropriate databases with the objective of identifying the relevant literature. Here, active learning, particularly Bayesian optimization, stands out as the predominantly used methodology. The majority of frameworks are partially autonomous, while fully autonomous frameworks are underrepresented. However, more research is needed in the field of AI-driven experimental design due to the low number of relevant papers obtained.

1. Introduction

In recent years, the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into real-world applications has gained significant attention, especially after the introduction of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT4, which have demonstrated capabilities in natural language understanding, rapid data analysis, and knowledge synthesis. These advancements reflect a broader trend: AI systems are increasingly capable of supporting complex cognitive and decision-making tasks across diverse domains [1]. This trend has also found its way into scientific research, where AI is not only used for data analysis and modeling but is also beginning to reshape how experiments are designed and conducted [2].
Traditionally, scientific experimentation, particularly in fields such as biology, chemistry, and materials science, has relied on human intuition and iterative, time-consuming trial-and-error processes [3]. In such domains, selecting the right experimental parameters from a vast and multidimensional space is a major challenge, often limiting the pace and scope of discovery.
Leveraging AI for experimental design offers outstanding advantages over this method of human-based experimentation. AI can model complex relationships between parameters and outcomes, propose efficient experimental strategies and continuously improve by learning from previous results. A sketch of the AI-driven experimental design workflow can be found in Figure 1.
As a result, experiments can be performed precisely and efficiently, saving time and material by avoiding unnecessary trials. Consequently, there are reductions in cost for both experiments and potentially environmentally hazardous waste. In combination with an autonomous platform incorporating an experimentation and analysis stage, experiments can be performed autonomously. This concept is referred to in the literature as a “self-driven laboratory” (SDL) [4]. The autonomous execution and analysis of experiments further enhance the reproducibility of experiments and continuous experimentation, ideally operating without the need for human intervention. SDLs for different applications have been reported [2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14].
The literature incorporates various reviews highlighting the role of AI in accelerating scientific research across diverse fields with a particular focus on AI-driven experimental design [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,15,16,17]. Some reviews related to AI-driven experimental design target a specific domain, such as organic/inorganic semiconductors (materials science) or drug formulation (medicine), providing architectures or frameworks that are intended to be applied in the addressed field. Others concentrate on a specific technique, such as LLMs. The majority of reviews focus on self-driving laboratories rather than AI–human frameworks. Currently, the literature lacks a cross-domain perspective and merely provides general overviews and analyses of existing frameworks for AI-driven experimental design across different domains. Thus, an outline of applied AI methodologies in experimental design is missing. Furthermore, previous reviews overlook key aspects such as the degree of automation, online capability, and generalizability of AI frameworks.
In contrast, this study highlights the current state of AI-driven experimental design by analyzing existing approaches and frameworks. This encompasses both the AI techniques used in experimental design and the applied frameworks in general. In terms of a generic analysis of the framework, different aspects are considered. This includes the scientific domain, the degree of automation, the kind of data, and online and generalization capabilities. Additionally, the limitations and challenges of current AI methodologies, as well as explainability and ethical issues, are considered and discussed. By analyzing the existing literature accordingly, this research aims to guide researchers in identifying an ideal AI-driven experimental design system to accelerate their experimentation processes and, thus, their scientific research.
This study is structured as follows. The first part explains the methodology of the research, incorporating the search and filter strategy as well as the used taxonomy to guide the investigation of the filtered contributions. The second part covers the results and provides a discussion, while the third part concludes with the findings of this study.

2. Methodology

This section outlines the methodology used to conduct the systematic literature review of AI-driven experimental design. A search strategy is developed to clearly define the scope of this study. Relevant scientific databases are selected and queried using a carefully designed search query. Appropriate filters are applied to ensure the inclusion of only relevant publications while excluding non-relevant ones. The resulting set of contributions is then investigated using a well-defined taxonomy, leading to a structured and consistent analysis of the included studies. A sketch of the applied methodology can be found in Figure 2.

2.1. Search Strategy

To efficiently guide this study’s research toward the desired search space and exclude non-relevant publications, the subsequent search strategy is applied. It follows Piliuk and Tomforde [1] and encompasses the following steps:
  • Define research questions for guiding the systematic research.
  • Create an appropriate search query by defining meaningful search terms and assessing relevant databases.
  • Determine filter criteria to exclude non-relevant studies.
  • Apply the filter criteria through appropriate procedures.
To guide the literature research of this study, the following research questions are defined:
  • In which research fields and kinds of applications are AI techniques used to automate experimental design?
  • Which quantitative methods are used to implement AI in experimental design?
  • Which tasks in the experimental design process are addressed by these techniques?
  • What kind of data are used?
  • Are the proposed frameworks online-capable, and can they generalize well to new data?
The first question aims to identify the fields and applications in which AI-driven experimental design is applied. The second question aims to investigate which AI methodology is employed to ensure that the scope of the research lies within AI-driven experimental design. The objective of the third question is to examine which experimental design tasks within the experimental design process are addressed using AI methodologies. The fourth question addresses the data utilized, while the fifth question aims to analyze the online and generalization capabilities of the proposed frameworks. The publications included in this research are intended to answer these questions in order to provide a comprehensive overview of AI-driven experimental design. Thus, this study investigates various databases to ensure a comprehensive and balanced review of the existing literature, covering both method-specific and subject-specific resources.
Databases typically accepted in the field of AI, such as the ACM Digital Library and IEEE Xplore, are included. Additionally, subject-specific and experimental design-related resources, like ACS Publications and RSC Publishing, which focus on biology, chemistry, and materials science, are examined. To incorporate medicine-related publications, PubMed is also considered. Furthermore, general databases, including ScienceDirect and SpringerLink, are utilized to broaden the scope of the research. This selection of databases—two focused on AI, two on materials science, biology, and chemistry, one on medicine and biology, and two general repositories—ensures a broad and diverse overview of the relevant literature regarding AI-driven experimental design, balancing method-specific resources of AI research with subject-specific studies in experimental design while disregarding those with a very limited application focus or low popularity.
The assessed databases are queried by applying an appropriate search query. It combines various meaningful search terms. Using a search query ensures the reproducibility of our research. For this work, a search query is experimentally derived, and the following combinations of search terms were found to yield the best results for relevant studies: “artificial intelligence” AND “driven” AND (“experiment planning” OR “experiment selection” OR “experiment parameter adaption”). The first part of the query (“artificial intelligence” and “driven”) narrowed the search to publications that apply AI methodologies. Thus, the authors of this research could focus on intelligent, automated solutions and omit manual, hand-optimized approaches. During the development of the search query, it was found that using the term “artificial intelligence” consistently included all relevant publications identified in this study. In contrast, replacing it or adding other terms, such as “machine learning”, “deep learning”, or “automation”, either excluded relevant studies or significantly increased the inclusion of non-relevant publications. Therefore, “artificial intelligence” was retained as the primary term to ensure both coverage and precision in the literature search. The same development and trade-off strategy was applied to the other terms in the final search query.
The second part ensured that the scope of the contributions included experimental design and, therefore, set appropriate research boundaries. Thus, terms typically related to the experimental design process were identified and used accordingly. By applying the mentioned search query to the aforementioned databases, a well-functioning trade-off between obtaining less relevant contributions and too many non-relevant publications was achieved.
The proposed search strategy resulted in 329 contributions. Consequently, the search space was set to the period from 2000 to 2025, which led to the exclusion of 61 contributions. In addition, duplicate publications, which occurred in multiple databases, covering 14 publications and 20 non-research-based results, such as tables of contents, lists of references, or whole proceedings, were removed. Thus, 234 contributions were obtained and further investigated.

2.2. Filtering

This section discusses the filtering of relevant publications from the pool of contributions obtained by applying the aforementioned search query. Several filter criteria (FC) were applied to obtain the relevant publications that addressed the defined research questions and excluded the non-relevant ones.
First, to ensure a focus on concrete AI-driven experimental design solutions with corresponding results, the scope of relevant studies was limited, disregarding preliminary concepts and ideas. Thus, reviews, abstracts, concept papers, pre-prints, etc., were excluded (FC1). In addition, papers that did not propose quantitative AI-based methodologies but instead focused solely on statistical methods without a learning component were excluded (FC2). Furthermore, papers that failed to provide a clear explanation of the quantitative algorithms employed were also filtered out.
Apart from that, all studies that did not focus on or explicitly mention experimental design were excluded (FC3). This encompassed the use of AI for tasks within the experimental design process, such as planning, selecting, and optimizing; experiments and experimental parameters or conditions for decision-making; and the assessment of new experiments to perform next. Thus, papers that presented, for instance, the pure discovery of new materials without focusing on experiments and their parameters, were filtered out. If a different or updated version of a publication was proposed, only the newer version was included (FC4).
The filtering procedure was performed from FC1 to FC4 in an iterative manner. The papers under investigation were included until the filter criteria had been applied, after which certain publications could be excluded. The filter strategy and the filter criteria were applied to the 234 obtained publications, resulting in 22 relevant papers. In Table 1, the distribution of the excluded papers is shown in relation to the filter criteria applied.
Due to the niche of AI-driven experimental design, only a small number of contributions were included. Figure 3 presents the distribution of the 22 relevant papers by year in comparison with the 234 pre-filtered publications.
The figure illustrates the recent rise of AI in scientific research, with a particular focus on AI-driven experimental design. It is important to note that while earlier periods are grouped into full-year ranges (e.g., 2021–2023), the most recent data cover only 2024 and the beginning of 2025 (2024–2025). As a result, the apparent decline in the number of papers in the period 2024–2025 is due to incomplete data and a shorter interval rather than to a decrease in interest in AI. However, the figure indicates growing attention to AI-driven experimental design, as even within the shorter period of 2024–2025, an emerging trend can be observed.

2.3. Application of Filter Criteria

In order to improve the comprehensibility of the filtering process, this section provides a detailed explanation of the reasons leading to the exclusion of publications based on each filter criterion. An overview of the 212 excluded publications with respect to each criterion can be found in Table 2.

2.3.1. Filter Criterion 1

Since the goal of this study is to discover an ideal framework for AI-driven experimental design, publications that did not propose a concrete solution by presenting or implementing a novel method, algorithm, framework, or system were excluded. This encompassed, for example, publications that only provided an overview of the literature and the corresponding state of the art, such as reviews [3,4,5,6,7,9,11,12,13,15,16,17,21,41,44,58,61,74,87,98,103]. As a specific example, the review proposed by Su et al. [3] discussed the current state of LLMs for catalyst design.
Furthermore, FC1 also filtered out papers that only proposed ideas and theoretical frameworks, such as perspective papers [2,8,10,19,25,26,27,30,33,39,40,43,46,47,49,51,65,78,79,84]. For example, a perspective paper was presented by Hysmith et al. [2] that discussed the future of self-driving laboratories.

2.3.2. Filter Criterion 2

This research focuses on AI-driven experimental design. Consequently, frameworks that did not leverage AI or machine learning techniques, such as rule-based systems (e.g., hard-coded decision rules or hand-crafted expert systems without learning or adaptation) or classical optimization algorithms without learning capabilities (e.g., grid search, brute-force search, or exhaustive enumeration) were excluded from this study. Only frameworks that incorporated models capable of learning from data were considered. Thus, publications that did not leverage AI methodologies, such as [107,108,111,117,120,124,125,126,131,133,136,137,138,139,142,153], were excluded. For example, Wang et al. [125] presented an approach for promoting molecules selectively to chemically active energy levels, without applying AI methodologies. In addition, papers that did not explain the underlying methodology in detail, such as Guevarra et al. [116], were excluded.

2.3.3. Filter Criterion 3

FC3 was used to exclude publications that presented a concrete solution based on AI methodologies but did not target experimental design, such as [161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171]. For example, a framework was proposed by Amuzuga et al. [171] that used AI methodologies, but instead of focusing on experimental design, AI was used for metamodeling to estimate the fatigue life of a welded joint.
In addition, publications that exclusively focused on the discovery of materials, such as [193,216], or drug combinations, such as [182], in terms of only predicting appropriate output combinations without including the experimental parameters, were excluded.

2.3.4. Filter Criterion 4

As a result of filter criteria FC1-FC3, there were no remaining publications that existed in different versions, leading to zero exclusions due to FC4.

2.4. Taxonomy

This study aims to review the current state of research in AI-driven experimental design. To achieve this, the selected studies were carefully analyzed, based on the following taxonomy. By applying this taxonomy to the relevant contributions, the defined research questions could be addressed. Consequently, six taxonomy categories were chosen: domain of application, AI methodologies for experimental design, degree of automation, kind of data, online-capable, and generalization capability.
On a surface level, the contributions were examined by highlighting the fields and domains in which machine learning techniques or AI have been applied for experimental design. Therefore, a distinction between generic and subject-oriented frameworks could be made. Thus, the main fields of interest for AI-driven experimental design were determined.
By delving deeper, the contributions were investigated regarding the AI methodology used. Since the goal of this research is to provide a comprehensive overview of AI-driven experimental design, a key focus is to analyze the specific tasks within the experimental design process for which these AI methodologies were applied. Furthermore, the degree of automation of the reviewed frameworks was analyzed by classifying them into three categories: fully autonomous, partially autonomous, and supportive. In addition, the kind of data was investigated to identify those typically utilized in experimental design applications. Moreover, online-capable and generalizable frameworks were identified. While the former is necessary for adapting experiments on the fly, the latter offers the possibility to use a framework in different experimental design applications.

3. Results

This section discusses the results obtained from analyzing the pool of 22 relevant studies after carefully applying the previously defined taxonomy. A list of studies with respect to the key points investigated is provided in Table 3 and Table 4.
The following sections focus on specific aspects found in the tables.

3.1. Domains of Application

AI-driven experimental design has been used in several domains to accelerate experiments, although general frameworks have also been proposed. In order to make the research comprehensible, the relevant contributions were classified into five classes based on the domains of the included contributions: general frameworks, biology, chemistry, materials science, and fabrication. The distribution of the defined domains in which AI-driven experimental design has been applied can be found in Table 5.
The table shows that AI-driven experimental design has mostly been applied in chemistry and materials science. This may be because these domains typically involve a large number of experiments with high-dimensional parameter spaces. In terms of chemistry, the main interest lies in reaction optimization and chemical synthesis. In materials science, AI methodologies have mostly been used in the context of materials synthesis and optimization. Although a medicine-specific database was included in this research, there were no reviewed frameworks that passed the exclusion criteria.

3.2. AI Methodologies for Experimental Design

This section examines the machine learning and AI methodologies employed in the reviewed literature for experimental design, offering an overview of their implementations. For this study, the methodologies are grouped into four categories: optimization, supervised learning, active learning (AL), and reinforcement learning (RL). A sketch of these methodologies can be found in Figure 4.
These categories were defined based on their primary functional objectives. Optimization refers to algorithms whose core purpose is to iteratively improve a target outcome but may not necessarily be efficient, such as Bayesian optimization (BO) and genetic algorithms (GAs). Supervised learning refers to models trained on labeled datasets to predict or classify outcomes, such as regression and classification models. AL incorporates methods that use models to select data points (experiments) that are most informative for improving the model. It aims to enhance the learning process by reducing the amount of data required for effective model training. RL encompasses methods in which agents learn optimal actions through interaction with an environment using reward signals.
While there is an acknowledged conceptual overlap among these categories, particularly between optimization and active learning, this study adopted a function-oriented classification and did not aim to clearly distinguish the different classes using explicit definitions. Table 6 shows the number of AI techniques found in the reviewed literature under each category. The numbers in parentheses represent techniques used independently without being combined with other techniques.
It can be observed that optimization and AL methodologies were used most frequently, especially as standalone approaches. In contrast, supervised techniques were combined with other methodologies for experimental design. By delving deeper into the methodologies to identify the utilized techniques, we have obtained the results shown in Table 7.
The table shows that the most widely applied technique was BO, followed by regression and classification methods. Various AL methodologies were employed, among them machine learning and non-machine learning techniques, but each technique only occurred once.
The implementation of the identified techniques is highlighted in the following by example frameworks. A distinction between single and hybrid approaches is made.

3.2.1. Single Approaches

Based on the above-mentioned AI methodologies, various frameworks were found that incorporated a single technique. This section discusses some example frameworks, categorized by AI classes.
Optimization:
Several frameworks found in the contributions were based on BO for optimizing experiments or process parameters and selecting new experiments accordingly in an iterative manner; the implementations were mostly similar. For example, an approach for single-objective BO was proposed by Sadeghi et al. [11]. Here, an ensemble neural network (ENN) surrogate model was used for predicting the in-flow synthesis of Cu-based, lead-based metal halide perovskite nanocrystals. As a decision policy and acquisition function, expected improvement (EI) was proposed by the authors. In contrast, Suvarna et al. applied a combination of EI and predictive variance (PV) as an acquisition function to develop high-performance catalysts for higher alcohol synthesis, using a Gaussian process (GP) surrogate model.
Regarding GAs, the framework presented by Fu et al. [225] uses partial least squares regression (PLSR) and a GA for quality control in semiconductor manufacturing. The PLSR is applied to predict the experimental results and, thus, serves as a fitness function for the GA.
Supervised Learning:
Plommer et al. [221] proposed a supervised-based framework employing a random forest (RF) to predict the experimental or process output, aiming to optimize the extraction process of cannabinoids and predict the yields and extraction outcomes under different conditions. Thus, the selection of optimal process conditions and the exploration of unseen extraction yields could be achieved.
The general framework “Golem” developed by Aldeghi et al. [217] utilizes a tree-based regression model as a surrogate model to estimate robustness against variability in experimental conditions, such as noise or changing laboratories. In combination with optimization methods such as BO or GA, it supports the optimization of conditions and the selection of robust experiments to achieve reproducible results.
Another supervised learning approach presented by Cruse et al. [232] employs decision tree (DT) models to predict the experimental output of several synthesis conditions in terms of the formation of impurity phases in BiFeO3 thin-film synthesis.
Active Learning:
Various approaches have applied AL techniques to experimental processes. The experimental results of the obtained data are fed back to train the models, improving and optimizing the yield of the experimental output.
Eyke et al. [222] proposed a framework for predicting the reaction yield and for selecting experiments and reactions, which are the most uncertain for the predictive model, for the reduction of reaction screening. A single-trained model with applied Monte Carlo (MC) dropout masks and an ENN is used to estimate uncertainty. The ENN performed slightly better, depending on the specific task.
Similarly, Almeida et al. [229] presented an AL framework for reaction optimization, which predicts the reaction yield and estimates uncertainty, but it is based on RF regression. The AL methodologies were utilized to optimize reactions and concrete in a case study for optimizing a Pd-catalyzed C–H arylation reaction. To select experiments to perform, an exploration–exploitation strategy is employed based on prediction and uncertainty estimation. For the first three iterations, an exploration algorithm is used, while the subsequent iterations follow an exploitation algorithm based on selecting reactions with the lowest variance obtained among the top five reactions regarding the yield.
A different approach proposed by Waelder et al. [223] regarding carbon nanotube growth uses a surrogate jump regression model-based methodology for predicting the reaction yield and estimating uncertainty. The selection of experiments is performed on the basis of an exploration and exploitation strategy. While Latin hypercube sampling (LHS) is employed for the exploration phase, the maximum yield is used for the exploitation phase.
Chen et al. [235] presented a framework for selecting experiments in the case of high-throughput screening based on margin sampling. A categorical matrix completion algorithm is utilized to estimate uncertainty.
Both [216] and Bosten et al. [230] proposed assisted AL frameworks. The former approach applies BO for selecting experiments in an iterative manner with regard to composition–structure phase mapping. Thereby, humans can add informative input to guide and further optimize the algorithm. The latter uses a retention model to predict the yield and estimate the associated uncertainty for experimental results in the case of liquid chromatography. Subsequent experiments are selected iteratively, prioritizing those expected to maximize information gain or reduce the model’s uncertainty. The assisted part encompasses the integration and guidance of external sources to achieve an efficient learning process and support the proper selection of experiments, especially in the initial phase of experimentation. Herein, prior knowledge and experimental data are integrated into the retention model through Bayesian statistics.
Reinforcement Learning:
Dama et al. [233] presented an RL framework called “BacterAI” for investigating combinations of amino acids that support the growth of different bacteria. BacterAI works without prior knowledge and is therefore perfectly suitable for transfer learning. The approach consists of two agents. One incorporates a neural network (NN) surrogate model for predicting the experimental output and the fitness of the chosen condition parameter. An MC search policy-based rollout algorithm is used for the trade-off between exploitation and exploration. The other agent consists of a GA that aims to find human-interpretable rules for the obtained experimental results from the NN-based agent.

3.2.2. Hybrid Approaches

Optimization and Supervised Learning:
In their work, Lai et al. [226] presented a framework for catalyst design and optimization. The authors employed an LLM equipped with a multi-objective Bayesian optimization (MOBO) approach. The LLM serves as an experimental design preparation stage and is used to identify processes and their relevant parameters in the provided raw texts. The texts are automatically filtered from the scientific literature by a keyword-based search. The LLM applied is a ChatGPT model. BO is then utilized to optimize the surrogate model and the experimental parameters and select new experiments to perform, based on the acquisition function. A GP regression model is used as the surrogate model, while EHI is applied as the acquisition function. To enhance the learning process at the beginning of the optimization, experiments are initially selected by LHS.
Supervised Learning and Supervised Learning:
Yoon et al. [224] proposed an approach for electrical conductivity optimization and discovery of doped conjugated polymers based on two supervised learning methods. It consists of an RF classifier to filter out materials with low conductivity and a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression model, which determines the conductivity and the experimental results, respectively, using different descriptors as input, such as spectral, process, material, and measurement descriptors.
Reinforcement Learning and Supervised Learning:
Epps et al. [220] proposed a framework for accelerating microfluidic material synthesis, consisting of RL and supervised learning. The framework combines a single-period horizon strategy with a surrogate model. The surrogate model includes, among others, a naive Bayes classifier to determine the feasibility of the experimental parameters and a GP regression-based model to predict the output. The RL approach consists of a belief model, an objective function, and a decision policy. An ENN is used as the belief model and trained to predict three output parameters based on the output of the surrogate model. The objective function uses a multi-objective strategy based on the weighted mean-utility or probability sampling to turn the prediction into a single quality value. This quality value is used to adjust the decision policy based on EI and, thus, new experiments are selected. The obtained experimental results are used to further improve the models.

3.2.3. Summary

This section summarizes the findings of the analysis regarding the applied techniques. In Table 8, an overview of the employed techniques and the corresponding experimental design tasks is provided.
Optimization Techniques:
The optimization techniques used in the contributions encompass BO and GAs.
BO optimizes the given experimental parameters using an appropriate surrogate model and selects or suggests new experiments to perform based on a policy applied through an acquisition function. Kernel-based GP regression, ENNs, and RFs are used as surrogate models. Both single- and multi-objective BO can be found in the contributions. The former uses the EI and PV as an acquisition function, while the latter utilizes the Expected Hypervolume Improvement (EHI) to find the optimal Pareto front. Popular BO-based algorithms include Phoenics and Gryffin [75].
Another widely employed optimization method is the GA. It is used to optimize process parameters using a fitness function to determine which parameter combination is most suitable and should be used for the next experiment by mimicking an evolutionary process related to Darwin, optimizing the derivation of rules to select experiments.
Supervised Techniques:
Supervised methods are divided into regression and classification. Regarding regression, several techniques are used for different tasks within the experimental design process. An overview of these techniques can be found in Table 8.
RF classification and naive Bayes classification are applied as classification techniques to support the preparation of experiments by determining feasibility and filtering out poor parameter combinations. GP classification is used for uncertainty estimation in an AL framework. Regression techniques are predominantly applied as surrogate models to understand the experimental data and to support the optimization of experimental parameters.
Active Learning Techniques:
AL is used within the experimental design process to select new informative experiments to perform by reducing the model’s uncertainty. Thus, it supports the training of predictive models, which are, for instance, used to forecast the results of an experiment. Various strategies are used, such as uncertainty-based sampling.
Reinforcement Learning Techniques:
RL is employed in AI-driven experimental design for choosing and optimizing appropriate experimental parameters, as well as selecting experiments accordingly. The proposed strategies encompass single-period and multi-period horizon RL. The most notable approaches include belief models and decision policies based on MC search and EI.
The distribution of AI methodologies regarding the different categories can be found in Figure 5, which shows that the majority of frameworks incorporate a single AI method and that there is a predominance of optimization and AL in AI-driven experimental design. Bayesian optimization stands out as the most applied methodology.
The reviewed literature does not include methodologies that integrate deep learning into experimental design in terms of experimental selection and optimization. This could be due to the simultaneous challenges of limited data availability and the complexity of the parameter space.

3.3. Degree of Automation

In this section, the degree of automation of the proposed frameworks is investigated. The contributions are categorized into three classes: supportive, partially autonomous, and fully autonomous.
Within the scope of this work, a fully autonomous framework is defined as one that independently plans, selects, executes, and analyzes experiments while autonomously integrating experimental outcomes to iteratively improve its strategies. Such systems operate without any requirement for human intervention, achieving an entirely closed-loop experimental design process.
In contrast, partially autonomous frameworks perform multiple steps in the fully autonomous workflow and incorporate feedback from previous experiments. However, these frameworks do not include an automated execution and analysis stage. Partially autonomous frameworks still depend on humans to execute experiments and make decisions at critical stages, such as approving experimental suggestions or interpreting results. In the literature, these frameworks are termed “human-in-the-loop” systems, in which automation supports but does not fully replace human expertise.
Supportive frameworks provide assistance by proposing experimental candidates, narrowing the search space, or optimizing specific aspects of the experimental process. They do not autonomously adjust their strategies based on experimental outcomes and lack an iterative feedback mechanism. The final decision-making and execution processes remain entirely under human control. The classified contributions can be found in Table 4 and Figure 6, while the number of papers per automation category can be found in Table 9.
The figure shows that partially autonomous frameworks are predominantly employed. Fully autonomous and supportive frameworks are underrepresented.
Without an iterative optimization process and an autonomous experimentation platform, the objective of supportive frameworks is to model existing experimental data and predict results, making processes more efficient. Here, supervised learning techniques are employed. Using the results of experiments to optimize the models would make these frameworks partially autonomous.
Partially autonomous frameworks typically utilize AL or optimization techniques due to their iterative optimization processes. By combining an autonomous experimentation platform with a partially autonomous framework, a fully autonomous framework can be achieved.
Fully autonomous frameworks are achieved in the context of SDLs Sadeghi et al. [11], Schilter et al. [219], Epps et al. [220]. BO, AL, and RL/supervised learning are applied as AI techniques. The techniques are combined with an autonomous experimentation platform for executing and analyzing experiments. Sadeghi et al. [11] utilized a self-developed modular platform, consisting of fluid delivery, mixing and reaction, and in situ characterization. Schilter et al. [219] applied IBM’s RoboRXN platform and used robotic actions by RoboRXN for executing experiments and HLPC for analyzing experimental results. Epps et al. [220] also employed a self-developed modular platform, incorporating an autonomous LHP QD synthesis bot. In the context of carbon nanotube growth, an aged-walled, supported catalyst chemical vapor deposition system was used by Waelder et al. The system was integrated into the ARES (Automated Research System) platform.

3.4. Kind of Data

In the reviewed literature, various types of data can be found, depending on the domain and the objectives of the applied framework. Most datasets include experimental parameters specific to the field of application, such as reaction parameters, synthesis parameters, or other process-related variables, along with their corresponding experimental output. For synthesis processes, these parameters include the temperature and solvent type. In the context of microbial metabolism mapping, parameters such as growth data on amino acids or other nutrients are utilized. Additionally, some frameworks incorporate text data extracted from published scientific articles, which contain process parameters. In Table 4, the types of data and the corresponding studies can be found.

3.5. Online Capability

Online-capable frameworks are important for understanding processes and experiments and adapting them on the fly. In this research, online capability refers to the incorporation of a feedback loop, in which models are updated with experimental data as soon as the results are obtained, allowing for continuous experimentation and optimization until a predefined stopping point is reached. In Table 4, the results obtained from the online capability analysis are shown, while Table 10 shows the number of papers found to be online-capable.
The results indicate that nearly all frameworks are online-capable, except for three supportive frameworks. Both of these frameworks show a lack of adjustment through the data received from selected and conducted experiments.

3.6. Generalization Ability

The aspect of generalizability plays an important role in deploying robust frameworks across different scenarios and applications, especially in the context of autonomous laboratories, which are ideally designed to be adaptable to diverse use cases.
In this context, “generalizability” refers to the ability of a framework to maintain its performance and reliability when applied beyond its original training domain or initial application area, without requiring significant modifications. A highly generalizable framework can be transferred to new experimental applications, materials, or objectives while still providing effective and trustworthy results. Table 4 shows the list of contributions and their generalization capability. Table 11 shows the number of generalizable papers.
Some of the frameworks are limited to specific applications or materials due to the incorporation of domain-specific experimentation platforms. Other frameworks are optimized for a specific application and need to be adapted. General frameworks require domain-specific data and possibly expert knowledge and can be deployed across different scenarios and applications.

3.7. Discussion

While our systematic search initially identified 234 publications, the final set included only 22 papers (approximately 9%). This relatively small number is primarily due to the niche nature of the research field, as our inclusion criteria were intentionally focused on papers that directly addressed frameworks that proposed concrete solutions based on AI-driven experimental design. Filtering for AI-based and experimental design-related publications is necessary to ensure appropriate results. Future surveys could consider broader search terms or inclusion criteria to capture a wider range of contributions. For example, the term “artificial intelligence” could be replaced or extended with the terms “deep learning”, “machine learning”, and “automated experimentation”. However, this could also increase the number of irrelevant publications found during the experimental derivation of the search query, especially by only considering ”automated experimentation”, “ which leads, among others, to non-AI-based experimentation frameworks. Similarly, a replacement of the included experiment-related terms with the term “experimental design” also led to poor results.
The observations made during the systematic review of the literature lead to the question of what properties an ideal system or framework for AI-driven experimental design should incorporate. Depending on the application’s objective, one has to decide whether a system needs to operate partially or fully autonomously. Both frameworks are capable of using AI to plan and select experiments and optimize future experiments based on the obtained experimental results, e.g., Lai et al. [226] (partially autonomous) and Epps et al. [220] (fully autonomous). While partially autonomous frameworks can play a supporting role for scientists during the experimental design process to overcome expensive trial-and-error experiments, fully autonomous frameworks perform the selected experiments without the need for a scientist in the loop. In contrast, supportive frameworks are not desirable due to the missing feedback loop. Thus, such systems are not able to learn from the new observations obtained during experiments. Compared to partially autonomous frameworks, fully autonomous frameworks are significantly less represented in the reviewed literature, which shows the need for further implementations in this field. However, both partially and fully autonomous frameworks share similar desired properties. Both need to be generalizable in order to be used for different applications. A majority of the reviewed frameworks exhibit generalizability. This is particularly important for fully autonomous systems, which are usually applied in the context of SDLs and, thus, should perform different kinds of experiments without being limited to one specific kind. An example of a limited framework was proposed by Epps et al. [220] that focused on flow chemistry. Therefore, the experimentation stage needs to be more flexible and adaptable. Furthermore, online capabilities are necessary to adapt experiments based on newly collected data. All partially and fully autonomous reviewed systems meet this criterion.
In terms of AI techniques, AL (including optimization) and RL should be applied. Both methodologies incorporate a feedback loop and an adaptation based on newly received data. A key limitation of existing frameworks is the sparse availability of real, domain-specific data, which is both time-consuming and costly to obtain. Particularly in the early stage, sufficient data are mandatory for an efficient exploration. While optimization techniques and AL are generally efficient in handling sparse data, RL- and supervised learning-based methodologies require large amounts of data to achieve effective learning and generalization. Particularly, AL is capable of integrating human knowledge for dealing with scarce data, enhancing learning efficiency and speed. Other general but potential solutions to overcome the data bottleneck include the use of transfer learning, few-shot learning, and data augmentation techniques [236,237]. An approach for integrating both human knowledge and generative AI to deal with scarce data is membership query synthesis. Here, generative AI is applied to generate synthetic data based on real experimental data while incorporating the knowledge of human scientists in terms of AL to enhance data quality [238].
In addition to data scarcity, the complexity of the data is often high due to the high-dimensional parameters and search spaces. Multi-objective-based optimization frameworks and reinforcement learning aim to handle this problem. Although MOBO is suitable for low-data environments, it may struggle to achieve a good trade-off between multiple objectives when data are too scarce or with insufficient computational resources. An advantage of RL over optimization methods is the planning of multi-step strategies, while optimization methods suggest one experiment at a time. Apart from this, Dama et al. [233] showed that RL is also able to learn experimental design without prior knowledge, leading to high generalizability. In conclusion, an ideal framework could integrate AL with RL, referred to as reinforcement active learning, to address both limited data availability and the complexity arising from high-dimensional parameter and search spaces.
A preferable improvement for the methodologies discussed, besides data augmentation, is DL as a state of the art methodology. It enhances the adaptation to newly received data, capturing complex patterns in high-dimensional spaces, thereby increasing predictive accuracy. However, the reviewed literature lacks a framework that incorporates DL. One reason is the previously mentioned data scarcity. DL models typically require large, labeled datasets to generalize effectively. Moreover, the computational cost and infrastructure requirements for training and deploying DL models can be prohibitive in laboratory settings that prioritize real-time decision-making and flexibility. Additionally, DL models are often treated as black boxes, which raises concerns about interpretability and explainability when AI is expected to guide scientific decisions. In general, the explainability of AI-driven experimental design decisions remains largely unaddressed, with only one of the reviewed frameworks (Yoon et al. [224]) considering this aspect as a main research objective by incorporating a combination of an RF classifier and LASSO regression. However, some frameworks, even if not explicitly stated, deploy explainable and interpretable methodologies and are therefore considered explainable. Examples include purely tree-based frameworks (Aldeghi et al. [217], Plommer et al. [221], Cruse et al. [232]) or approaches that achieve partial explainability by integrating interpretable surrogate models, such as GP regression (Hickman et al. [218], Schilter et al. [219], Suvarna et al. [234]) or tree-based models (Liang et al. [231]). Future research should prioritize explainability to develop reliable and trustworthy frameworks and ensure acceptance among scientists.
An important aspect to consider when implementing AI-driven experimental design frameworks is their ethical dimension. In the case of fully autonomous frameworks, they offer tremendous advantages, but several critical questions arise: Who is responsible if AI designs and conducts harmful, unnecessary, or costly experiments? Does the use of fully autonomous systems assist scientists by relieving them of monotonous, time-consuming tasks, or does it risk excluding them from the creative experimentation process? Furthermore, how can the risk be mitigated that AI frameworks inherent biases from their training data? High transparency in the AI’s decisions and the operational process is needed to ensure the trust of scientists. In contrast, partially autonomous and supportive frameworks can act as a helping hand, narrowing the research space and suggesting experiments while leaving the decision-making and experimentation in human hands, thereby accelerating the research but preserving creativity. Hazardous or impractical experimental designs can be disregarded by researchers, and in partially autonomous frameworks, such feedback can be used to further refine and improve AI’s recommendations. If carefully designed, both frameworks could lead to high reproducibility, reducing waste and unnecessary experiments and thereby accelerating research.

4. Conclusions

This study investigated the role of AI in experimental design, aiming to explore whether and how AI can accelerate scientific research. A broad literature search was conducted across multiple databases, combining method-based, subject-specific, and general sources. A carefully developed search query and appropriate filtering narrowed the initial number of 234 results to 22 relevant contributions. This relatively small number of results reflects the emerging nature of AI-driven experimental design, highlighting a clear need for further research in this interdisciplinary field. A taxonomy-based analysis of the selected studies was used to address the defined research questions.
The findings suggest that AI has significant potential to accelerate scientific research by optimizing the design, planning, and execution of experiments. In particular, AL, including optimization methodologies, stand out as key drivers, enabling iterative refinement of experiments using minimal data. These methods can effectively reduce the number of necessary trials by prioritizing the most informative experiments, thus saving time and resources. The use of surrogate models and uncertainty estimation allows AI systems to make informed decisions, even under data scarcity, demonstrating a practical advantage over traditional trial-and-error methods. BO is predominantly employed and shows great performance in handling scarce data and multiple targets (MOBO). To address scarce data and high-dimensional parameter spaces and enable long-term planning, combining RL with the data efficiency of AL is recommended.
Apart from this, the majority of AI frameworks belong to chemistry or materials science. The generalizability of several frameworks offers the opportunity to apply them in other domains.
However, the application of DL remains limited, primarily due to data requirements. Obtaining significant amounts of real data is often time-consuming and costly. Therefore, future research should investigate data-efficient frameworks and AI methods for dealing with scarce data. Where sufficient data is available, its integration could lead to more powerful, flexible, and accurate design tools. Data augmentation, transfer learning, and few-shot learning could help to overcome data scarcity. Furthermore, the lack of explainability and transparency in AI decision-making remains a barrier to broader acceptance within the scientific community. This highlights the need for the implementation of interpretable models.
In terms of deployment, partially autonomous frameworks are most common, balancing AI-driven decision support with human oversight. Here, AI acts as a helping hand, without preventing human creativity. In contrast, fully autonomous systems offer transformative potential by enabling continuous, closed-loop experimentation without human intervention. These systems can drastically speed up the experimentation process by suggesting experimental designs, executing them, and analyzing the results to modify subsequent experiments. However, the implementation of fully autonomous frameworks is still rare and needs further research. In particular, regarding their explainability to address ethical issues.
Overall, this study demonstrates that AI-driven experimental design can make scientific research more efficient, targeted, and reproducible. Researchers, especially in data-rich, high-throughput environments or with high parameter-search space complexity, stand to benefit most. In addition, domains with sparse data can also see improvements through smart sampling and model-guided experimentation. This research provides a foundation for future studies that aim to apply AI for experiment design in a certain domain. By offering a structured overview of existing frameworks, their implementation, and associated limitations, this study seeks to support researchers in selecting and developing suitable AI-driven approaches to accelerate their experimental processes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.N.; methodology, L.N.; data curation, L.N.; investigation, L.N.; visualization, L.N.; writing—original draft preparation, L.N.; writing—review and editing, S.T.; supervision, S.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge financial support by Land Schleswig-Holstein within the funding programme Open Access Publikationsfonds. This research was supported by the IDIR-Project (Digital Implant Research), a cooperation financed by Kiel University, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, and Helmholtz Zentrum Hereon.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
AIArtificial intelligence
ALActive learning
BOBayesian optimization
DLDeep learning
DTDecision tree
EDNNEnsemble deep neural network
EHIExpected hypercube improvement
EIExpected improvement
ENNEnsemble neural network
FCFilter criteria
GAGenetic algorithm
GPGaussian process
LASSOLeast absolute shrinkage and selection operator
LHSLatin hypercube sampling
LLMLarge language model
MCMonte Carlo
MOBOMulti-objective Bayesian optimization
NNNeural network
PLSRPartial least square regression
PVPredictive variance
RLReinforcement learning
RFRandom forest
SOBOSingle-objective Bayesian optimization

References

  1. Piliuk, K.; Tomforde, S. Artificial intelligence in emergency medicine. A systematic literature review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2023, 180, 105274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Hysmith, H.; Foadian, E.; Padhy, S.P.; Kalinin, S.V.; Moore, R.G.; Ovchinnikova, O.S.; Ahmadi, M. The future of self-driving laboratories: From human in the loop interactive AI to gamification. Digit. Discov. 2024, 3, 621–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Su, Y.; Wang, X.; Ye, Y.; Xie, Y.; Xu, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Wang, C. Automation and machine learning augmented by large language models in a catalysis study. Chem. Sci. 2024, 15, 12200–12233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Häse, F.; Roch, L.M.; Aspuru-Guzik, A. Next-Generation Experimentation with Self-Driving Laboratories. Trends Chem. 2019, 1, 282–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lo, S.; Baird, S.G.; Schrier, J.; Blaiszik, B.; Carson, N.; Foster, I.; Aguilar-Granda, A.; Kalinin, S.V.; Maruyama, B.; Politi, M.; et al. Review of low-cost self-driving laboratories in chemistry and materials science: The “frugal twin” concept. Digit. Discov. 2024, 3, 842–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hickman, R.J.; Bannigan, P.; Bao, Z.; Aspuru-Guzik, A.; Allen, C. Self-driving laboratories: A paradigm shift in nanomedicine development. Matter 2023, 6, 1071–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bennett, J.A.; Abolhasani, M. Autonomous chemical science and engineering enabled by self-driving laboratories. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 2022, 36, 100831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sadeghi, S.; Canty, R.B.; Mukhin, N.; Xu, J.; Delgado-Licona, F.; Abolhasani, M. Engineering a Sustainable Future: Harnessing Automation, Robotics, and Artificial Intelligence with Self-Driving Laboratories. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2024, 12, 12695–12707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tom, G.; Schmid, S.P.; Baird, S.G.; Cao, Y.; Darvish, K.; Hao, H.; Lo, S.; Pablo-García, S.; Rajaonson, E.M.; Skreta, M.; et al. Self-Driving Laboratories for Chemistry and Materials Science. Chem. Rev. 2024, 124, 9633–9732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Beaucage, P.A.; Sutherland, D.R.; Martin, T.B. Automation and Machine Learning for Accelerated Polymer Characterization and Development: Past, Potential, and a Path Forward. Macromolecules 2024, 57, 8661–8670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sadeghi, S.; Bateni, F.; Kim, T.; Son, D.Y.; Bennett, J.A.; Orouji, N.; Punati, V.S.; Stark, C.; Cerra, T.D.; Awad, R.; et al. Autonomous nanomanufacturing of lead-free metal halide perovskite nanocrystals using a self-driving fluidic lab. Nanoscale 2024, 16, 580–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Snapp, K.L.; Brown, K.A. Driving school for self-driving labs. Digit. Discov. 2023, 2, 1620–1629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Seifrid, M.; Pollice, R.; Aguilar-Granda, A.; Morgan Chan, Z.; Hotta, K.; Ser, C.T.; Vestfrid, J.; Wu, T.C.; Aspuru-Guzik, A. Autonomous Chemical Experiments: Challenges and Perspectives on Establishing a Self-Driving Lab. Accounts Chem. Res. 2022, 55, 2454–2466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Morgan, D.; Pilania, G.; Couet, A.; Uberuaga, B.P.; Sun, C.; Li, J. Machine learning in nuclear materials research. Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci. 2022, 26, 100975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kalinin, S.V.; Ziatdinov, M.; Hinkle, J.; Jesse, S.; Ghosh, A.; Kelley, K.P.; Lupini, A.R.; Sumpter, B.G.; Vasudevan, R.K. Automated and Autonomous Experiments in Electron and Scanning Probe Microscopy. ACS Nano 2021, 15, 12604–12627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Aal E Ali, R.S.; Meng, J.; Khan, M.E.I.; Jiang, X. Machine learning advancements in organic synthesis: A focused exploration of artificial intelligence applications in chemistry. Artif. Intell. Chem. 2024, 2, 100049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bannigan, P.; Aldeghi, M.; Bao, Z.; Häse, F.; Aspuru-Guzik, A.; Allen, C. Machine learning directed drug formulation development. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2021, 175, 113806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Li, X.; Xu, Z.; Bu, D.; Cai, J.; Chen, H.; Chen, Q.; Chen, T.; Cheng, F.; Chi, L.; Dong, W.; et al. Recent progress on surface chemistry II: Property and characterization. Chin. Chem. Lett. 2025, 36, 110100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Smeaton, M.A.; Abellan, P.; Spurgeon, S.R.; Unocic, R.R.; Jungjohann, K.L. Tutorial on In Situ and Operando (Scanning) Transmission Electron Microscopy for Analysis of Nanoscale Structure—Property Relationships. ACS Nano 2024, 18, 35091–35103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Anker, A.S.; Aspuru-Guzik, A.; Mahmoud, C.B.; Bennett, S.; Briling, K.R.; Changiarath, A.; Chong, S.; Collins, C.M.; Cooper, A.I.; Crusius, D.; et al. Discovering structure-property correlations: General discussion. Faraday Discuss. 2024, 256, 373–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Batool, M.; Sanumi, O.; Jankovic, J. Application of artificial intelligence in the materials science, with a special focus on fuel cells and electrolyzers. Energy AI 2024, 18, 100424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wang, L.; Ma, C.; Feng, X.; Zhang, Z.; Yang, H.; Zhang, J.; Chen, Z.; Tang, J.; Chen, X.; Lin, Y.; et al. A survey on large language model based autonomous agents. Front. Comput. Sci. 2024, 18, 186345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Madanchian, M.; Taherdoost, H. AI-Powered Innovations in High-Tech Research and Development: From Theory to Practice. Comput. Mater. Contin. 2024, 81, 2133–2159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Abstracts. Fuel Energy Abstr. 2024, 65, 506–608. [CrossRef]
  25. Nian, M.; Braun, G.; Escher, B.I.; Fang, M. Toxicological Study of Human Exposure to Mixtures of Chemicals: Challenges and Approaches. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2024, 11, 773–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Groo, L.; Juhl, A.T.; Baldwin, L.A. Toward soft robotic inspection for aircraft: An overview and perspective. MRS Commun. 2024, 14, 741–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Achenbach, P.; Adhikari, D.; Afanasev, A.; Afzal, F.; Aidala, C.; Al-bataineh, A.; Almaalol, D.; Amaryan, M.; Androić, D.; Armstrong, W.; et al. The present and future of QCD. Nucl. Phys. A 2024, 1047, 122874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wu, Y.; Walsh, A.; Ganose, A.M. Race to the bottom: Bayesian optimisation for chemical problems. Digit. Discov. 2024, 3, 1086–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Li, Q.; Xing, R.; Li, L.; Yao, H.; Wu, L.; Zhao, L. Synchrotron radiation data-driven artificial intelligence approaches in materials discovery. Artif. Intell. Chem. 2024, 2, 100045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Xie, J.; Zhou, Y.; Faizan, M.; Li, Z.; Li, T.; Fu, Y.; Wang, X.; Zhang, L. Designing semiconductor materials and devices in the post-Moore era by tackling computational challenges with data-driven strategies. Nat. Comput. Sci. 2024, 4, 322–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Orouji, N.; Bennett, J.A.; Sadeghi, S.; Abolhasani, M. Digital Pareto-front mapping of homogeneous catalytic reactions. React. Chem. Eng. 2024, 9, 787–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Baró, E.L.; Nadal Rodríguez, P.; Juárez-Jiménez, J.; Ghashghaei, O.; Lavilla, R. Reaction Space Charting as a Tool in Organic Chemistry Research and Development. Adv. Synth. Catal. 2024, 366, 551–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Volk, A.A.; Abolhasani, M. Performance metrics to unleash the power of self-driving labs in chemistry and materials science. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Voogdt, C.G.P.; Tripathi, S.; Bassler, S.O.; McKeithen-Mead, S.A.; Guiberson, E.R.; Koumoutsi, A.; Bravo, A.M.; Buie, C.; Zimmermann, M.; Sonnenburg, J.L.; et al. Randomly barcoded transposon mutant libraries for gut commensals II: Applying libraries for functional genetics. Cell Rep. 2024, 43, 113519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Williams, B.M.; Hanson, B.R.; Pandya, R. Chapter 15—Geoscience-society interface: How to improve dialog and build actions for the benefit of human communities. In Geoethics for the Future; Peppoloni, S., Capua, G.D., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2024; pp. 191–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Von Stosch, M. Digital Process Development and Manufacturing of Biopharmaceuticals: Is It a Revolution? In Innovation in Life Sciences; Management for Professionals; Schönbohm, A., Von Horsten, H.H., Plugmann, P., Von Stosch, M., Eds.; Springer Nature Switzerland: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 61–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Volkamer, A.; Riniker, S.; Nittinger, E.; Lanini, J.; Grisoni, F.; Evertsson, E.; Rodríguez-Pérez, R.; Schneider, N. Machine learning for small molecule drug discovery in academia and industry. Artif. Intell. Life Sci. 2023, 3, 100056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhao, Y.; Zhu, Z.; Chen, B.; Qiu, S.; Huang, J.; Lu, X.; Yang, W.; Ai, C.; Huang, K.; He, C.; et al. Toward parallel intelligence: An interdisciplinary solution for complex systems. Innovation 2023, 4, 100521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Schrier, J.; Norquist, A.J.; Buonassisi, T.; Brgoch, J. In Pursuit of the Exceptional: Research Directions for Machine Learning in Chemical and Materials Science. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2023, 145, 21699–21716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bustillo, L.; Laino, T.; Rodrigues, T. The rise of automated curiosity-driven discoveries in chemistry. Chem. Sci. 2023, 14, 10378–10384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Xu, Y.; Ge, J.; Ju, C.W. Machine learning in energy chemistry: Introduction, challenges and perspectives. Energy Adv. 2023, 2, 896–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Burkert, V.; Elouadrhiri, L.; Afanasev, A.; Arrington, J.; Contalbrigo, M.; Cosyn, W.; Deshpande, A.; Glazier, D.; Ji, X.; Liuti, S.; et al. Precision studies of QCD in the low energy domain of the EIC. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 2023, 131, 104032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pelkie, B.G.; Pozzo, L.D. The laboratory of Babel: Highlighting community needs for integrated materials data management. Digit. Discov. 2023, 2, 544–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wang, X.Q.; Chen, P.; Chow, C.L.; Lau, D. Artificial-intelligence-led revolution of construction materials: From molecules to Industry 4.0. Matter 2023, 6, 1831–1859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Automate and digitize. Nat. Synth. 2023, 2, 459. [CrossRef]
  46. Vriza, A.; Chan, H.; Xu, J. Self-Driving Laboratory for Polymer Electronics. Chem. Mater. 2023, 35, 3046–3056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Cavasotto, C.N.; Di Filippo, J.I. The Impact of Supervised Learning Methods in Ultralarge High-Throughput Docking. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2023, 63, 2267–2280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kaur, D.P.; Singh, N.P.; Banerjee, B. A review of platforms for simulating embodied agents in 3D virtual environments. Artif. Intell. Rev. 2023, 56, 3711–3753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Espino, M.T.; Tuazon, B.J.; Espera, A.H.; Nocheseda, C.J.C.; Manalang, R.S.; Dizon, J.R.C.; Advincula, R.C. Statistical methods for design and testing of 3D-printed polymers. MRS Commun. 2023, 13, 193–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pacheco Gutierrez, D.; Folkmann, L.M.; Tribukait, H.; Roch, L.M. How to Accelerate R&D and Optimize Experiment Planning with Machine Learning and Data Science. Chimia 2023, 77, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Leins, D.A.; Haase, S.B.; Eslami, M.; Schrier, J.; Freeman, J.T. Collaborative methods to enhance reproducibility and accelerate discovery. Digit. Discov. 2023, 2, 12–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Peng, X.; Wang, X. Next-generation intelligent laboratories for materials design and manufacturing. MRS Bull. 2023, 48, 179–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Abolhasani, M.; Kumacheva, E. The rise of self-driving labs in chemical and materials sciences. Nat. Synth. 2023, 2, 483–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kardynska, M.; Kogut, D.; Pacholczyk, M.; Smieja, J. Mathematical modeling of regulatory networks of intracellular processes—Aims and selected methods. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 2023, 21, 1523–1532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Kabir, R.; Sivasubramanian, M.; Hitch, G.; Hakkim, S.; Kainesie, J.; Vinnakota, D.; Mahmud, I.; Hoque Apu, E.; Syed, H.Z.; Parsa, A.D. Chapter 17—“Deep learning” for healthcare: Opportunities, threats, and challenges. In Deep Learning in Personalized Healthcare and Decision Support; Garg, H., Chatterjee, J.M., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2023; pp. 225–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Gongora, A.E.; Saygin, V.; Snapp, K.L.; Brown, K.A. Chapter 12—Autonomous experimentation in nanotechnology. In Intelligent Nanotechnology; Zheng, Y., Wu, Z., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; pp. 331–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lin, D.Z.; Fang, G.; Liao, K. Synthesize in a Smart Way: A Brief Introduction to Intelligence and Automation in Organic Synthesis. In Machine Learning in Molecular Sciences; Challenges and Advances in Computational Chemistry and, Physics; Qu, C., Liu, H., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; Volume 36, pp. 227–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Botifoll, M.; Pinto-Huguet, I.; Arbiol, J. Machine learning in electron microscopy for advanced nanocharacterization: Current developments, available tools and future outlook. Nanoscale Horizons 2022, 7, 1427–1477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Arrington, J.; Battaglieri, M.; Boehnlein, A.; Bogacz, S.; Brooks, W.; Chudakov, E.; Cloët, I.; Ent, R.; Gao, H.; Grames, J.; et al. Physics with CEBAF at 12 GeV and future opportunities. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 2022, 127, 103985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Abdul Khalek, R.; Accardi, A.; Adam, J.; Adamiak, D.; Akers, W.; Albaladejo, M.; Al-bataineh, A.; Alexeev, M.; Ameli, F.; Antonioli, P.; et al. Science Requirements and Detector Concepts for the Electron-Ion Collider: EIC Yellow Report. Nucl. Phys. A 2022, 1026, 122447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Munyebvu, N.; Lane, E.; Grisan, E.; Howes, P.D. Accelerating colloidal quantum dot innovation with algorithms and automation. Mater. Adv. 2022, 3, 6950–6967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Barends, T.R.M.; Stauch, B.; Cherezov, V.; Schlichting, I. Serial femtosecond crystallography. Nat. Rev. Methods Prim. 2022, 2, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Jia, S.; Yang, P.; Gao, Z.; Li, Z.; Fang, C.; Gong, J. Recent progress in antisolvent crystallization. CrystEngComm 2022, 24, 3122–3135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Serov, N.; Vinogradov, V. Artificial intelligence to bring nanomedicine to life. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2022, 184, 114194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mayr, F.; Harth, M.; Kouroudis, I.; Rinderle, M.; Gagliardi, A. Machine Learning and Optoelectronic Materials Discovery: A Growing Synergy. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2022, 13, 1940–1951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Schmitz, C.; Cremanns, K.; Bissadi, G. Chapter 5—Application of machine learning algorithms for use in material chemistry. In Computational and Data-Driven Chemistry Using Artificial Intelligence; Akitsu, T., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 161–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Oettmeier, C.; Fessel, A.; Döbereiner, H.G. Chapter 12—Integrated biology of Physarum polycephalum: Cell biology, biophysics, and behavior of plasmodial networks. In Myxomycetes, 2nd ed.; Rojas, C., Stephenson, S.L., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; pp. 453–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Liu, Z.; Zheng, Y. Start of the “Age of Exploration” of AI Governance. In AI Ethics and Governance; Springer Nature Singapore: Singapore, 2022; pp. 111–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Li, B.; Zhong, Y.; Zhang, T.; Hua, N. Transcending the COVID-19 crisis: Business resilience and innovation of the restaurant industry in China. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2021, 49, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Epps, R.W.; Volk, A.A.; Ibrahim, M.Y.; Abolhasani, M. Universal self-driving laboratory for accelerated discovery of materials and molecules. Chem 2021, 7, 2541–2545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Stach, E.; DeCost, B.; Kusne, A.G.; Hattrick-Simpers, J.; Brown, K.A.; Reyes, K.G.; Schrier, J.; Billinge, S.; Buonassisi, T.; Foster, I.; et al. Autonomous experimentation systems for materials development: A community perspective. Matter 2021, 4, 2702–2726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lin, A.; Uva, A.; Babi, J.; Tran, H. Materials design for resilience in the biointegration of electronics. MRS Bull. 2021, 46, 860–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Tao, H.; Wu, T.; Aldeghi, M.; Wu, T.C.; Aspuru-Guzik, A.; Kumacheva, E. Nanoparticle synthesis assisted by machine learning. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2021, 6, 701–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Rodríguez-Martínez, X.; Pascual-San-José, E.; Campoy-Quiles, M. Accelerating organic solar cell material’s discovery: High-throughput screening and big data. Energy Environ. Sci. 2021, 14, 3301–3322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Pollice, R.; dos Passos Gomes, G.; Aldeghi, M.; Hickman, R.J.; Krenn, M.; Lavigne, C.; Lindner-D’Addario, M.; Nigam, A.; Ser, C.T.; Yao, Z.; et al. Data-Driven Strategies for Accelerated Materials Design. Accounts Chem. Res. 2021, 54, 849–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Bittner, M.I. Rethinking data and metadata in the age of machine intelligence. Patterns 2021, 2, 100208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Shi, Y.; Prieto, P.L.; Zepel, T.; Grunert, S.; Hein, J.E. Automated Experimentation Powers Data Science in Chemistry. Accounts Chem. Res. 2021, 54, 546–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Zhuo, Y.; Brgoch, J. Opportunities for Next-Generation Luminescent Materials through Artificial Intelligence. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2021, 12, 764–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Hayashi, Y. Time Economy in Total Synthesis. J. Org. Chem. 2021, 86, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Bergemann, D.; Ottaviani, M. Chapter 8—Information markets and nonmarkets. In Handbook of Industrial Organization; Ho, K., Hortaçsu, A., Lizzeri, A., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; Volume 4, pp. 593–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Idrobo-Ávila, E.; Loaiza-Correa, H.; Muñoz-Bolaños, F.; van Noorden, L.; Vargas-Cañas, R. A Proposal for a Data-Driven Approach to the Influence of Music on Heart Dynamics. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2021, 8, 699145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Hosszu, A.; Kaucsar, T.; Seeliger, E.; Fekete, A. Animal Models of Renal Pathophysiology and Disease. In Preclinical MRI of the Kidney; Methods in Molecular Biology; Pohlmann, A., Niendorf, T., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2021; Volume 2216, pp. 27–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Han, S.; Kashfipour, M.A.; Ramezani, M.; Abolhasani, M. Accelerating gas-liquid chemical reactions in flow. Chem. Commun. 2020, 56, 10593–10606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Zhong, J.; Riordon, J.; Wu, T.C.; Edwards, H.; Wheeler, A.R.; Pardee, K.; Aspuru-Guzik, A.; Sinton, D. When robotics met fluidics. Lab Chip 2020, 20, 709–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Siedler, M.; Eichling, S.; Huelsmeyer, M.; Angstenberger, J. Chapter 13: Formulation Development for Biologics Utilizing Lab Automation and In Vivo Performance Models. In Development of Biopharmaceutical Drug-Device Products; AAPS Advances in the Pharmaceutical Sciences Series; Jameel, F., Skoug, J.W., Nesbitt, R.R., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; Volume 35, pp. 299–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Cuadrado-Gallego, J.J.; Demchenko, Y. Data Science Body of Knowledge. In The Data Science Framework; Cuadrado-Gallego, J.J., Demchenko, Y., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 43–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Stein, H.S.; Gregoire, J.M. Progress and prospects for accelerating materials science with automated and autonomous workflows. Chem. Sci. 2019, 10, 9640–9649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. De Almeida, A.F.; Moreira, R.; Rodrigues, T. Synthetic organic chemistry driven by artificial intelligence. Nat. Rev. Chem. 2019, 3, 589–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Riordon, J.; Sovilj, D.; Sanner, S.; Sinton, D.; Young, E.W. Deep Learning with Microfluidics for Biotechnology. Trends Biotechnol. 2019, 37, 310–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Melo, S.M.; Carver, J.C.; Souza, P.S.; Souza, S.R. Empirical research on concurrent software testing: A systematic mapping study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2019, 105, 226–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Chandra, C.; Grabis, J. Methodology for Supply Chain Configuration. In Supply Chain Configuration; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 87–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Park, Y.; Kellis, M. Deep learning for regulatory genomics. Nat. Biotechnol. 2015, 33, 825–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Bouquet, F.; Chipeaux, S.; Lang, C.; Marilleau, N.; Nicod, J.M.; Taillandier, P. 1—Introduction to the Agent Approach. In Agent-Based Spatial Simulation with Netlogo; Banos, A., Lang, C., Marilleau, N., Eds.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2015; pp. 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Holzinger, A.; Dehmer, M.; Jurisica, I. Knowledge Discovery and interactive Data Mining in Bioinformatics—State-of-the-Art, future challenges and research directions. BMC Bioinform. 2014, 15, I1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Klie, S.; Mutwil, M.; Persson, S.; Nikoloski, Z. Inferring gene functions through dissection of relevance networks: Interleaving the intra- and inter-species views. Mol. Biosyst. 2012, 8, 2233–2241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Griffiths, G. Steps towards autonomy: From current measurements to underwater vehicles. Methods Oceanogr. 2012, 1–2, 22–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Potyrailo, R.; Rajan, K.; Stoewe, K.; Takeuchi, I.; Chisholm, B.; Lam, H. Combinatorial and High-Throughput Screening of Materials Libraries: Review of State of the Art. ACS Comb. Sci. 2011, 13, 579–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Kleiner, R.E.; Dumelin, C.E.; Liu, D.R. Small-molecule discovery from DNA-encoded chemical libraries. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2011, 40, 5707–5717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Sparkes, A.; Aubrey, W.; Byrne, E.; Clare, A.; Khan, M.N.; Liakata, M.; Markham, M.; Rowland, J.; Soldatova, L.N.; Whelan, K.E.; et al. Towards Robot Scientists for autonomous scientific discovery. Autom. Exp. 2010, 2, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Abstracts from Fuel and Energy Research Publications. Fuel Energy Abstr. 2008, 49, 382–462. [CrossRef]
  101. Perales, J.C.; Shanks, D.R. Models of covariation-based causal judgment: A review and synthesis. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2007, 14, 577–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Complex Systems and the Evolution of Economies. In Thinking in Complexity; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 311–365. [CrossRef]
  103. Goldfarb, D. High field ENDOR as a characterization tool for functional sites in microporous materials. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2006, 8, 2325–2343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. López-García, I.; Campillo, N.; Arnau-Jerez, I.; Hernández-Córdoba, M. ETAAS determination of gallium in soils using slurry sampling. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 2004, 19, 935–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Mainzer, K. Complex Systems and the Evolution of Human Society. In Thinking in Complexity; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2004; pp. 313–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Stewart, L.; Clark, R.; Behnke, C. High-throughput crystallization and structure determination in drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 2002, 7, 187–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Fei, Y.; Rendy, B.; Kumar, R.; Dartsi, O.; Sahasrabuddhe, H.P.; McDermott, M.J.; Wang, Z.; Szymanski, N.J.; Walters, L.N.; Milsted, D.; et al. AlabOS: A Python-based reconfigurable workflow management framework for autonomous laboratories. Digit. Discov. 2024, 3, 2275–2288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Pham, L.M.; Le, D.T. High-performance simulation of disease outbreaks in growing-finishing pig herds raised by the precision feeding method. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2024, 225, 109335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Chen, T.; She, C.; Wang, L.; Duan, S. Memristive leaky integrate-and-fire neuron and learnable straight-through estimator in spiking neural networks. Cogn. Neurodynamics 2024, 18, 3075–3091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Sim, M.; Vakili, M.G.; Strieth-Kalthoff, F.; Hao, H.; Hickman, R.J.; Miret, S.; Pablo-García, S.; Aspuru-Guzik, A. ChemOS 2.0: An orchestration architecture for chemical self-driving laboratories. Matter 2024, 7, 2959–2977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Seifrid, M.; Strieth-Kalthoff, F.; Haddadnia, M.; Wu, T.C.; Alca, E.; Bodo, L.; Arellano-Rubach, S.; Yoshikawa, N.; Skreta, M.; Keunen, R.; et al. Chemspyd: An open-source python interface for Chemspeed robotic chemistry and materials platforms. Digit. Discov. 2024, 3, 1319–1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Liu, H.; Li, Y.; Xin, H.; Wang, F.; Du, Y.; Wu, J. The Innovation and Practice of a Remote Physical Experiment Method. In Proceedings of the 2024 International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence for Education, New York, NY, USA, 6–8 September 2024; ISAIE ’24. pp. 583–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. He, L.; Song, L.; Li, X.; Lin, S.; Ye, G.; Liu, H.; Zhao, X. Study of andrographolide bioactivity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa based on computational methodology and biochemical analysis. Front. Chem. 2024, 12, 1388545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Engelmann, C.; Somnath, S. Science Use Case Design Patterns for Autonomous Experiments. In Proceedings of the 28th European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs, Irsee, Germany, 5–9 July 2024. EuroPLoP ’23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Kovtun, V.; Grochla, K.; Kharchenko, V.; Haq, M.A.; Semenov, A. Stochastic forecasting of variable small data as a basis for analyzing an early stage of a cyber epidemic. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 22810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Guevarra, D.; Kan, K.; Lai, Y.; Jones, R.J.R.; Zhou, L.; Donnelly, P.; Richter, M.; Stein, H.S.; Gregoire, J.M. Orchestrating nimble experiments across interconnected labs. Digit. Discov. 2023, 2, 1806–1812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Misko, V.R.; Baraban, L.; Makarov, D.; Huang, T.; Gelin, P.; Mateizel, I.; Wouters, K.; Munck, N.D.; Nori, F.; Malsche, W.D. Selecting active matter according to motility in an acoustofluidic setup: Self-propelled particles and sperm cells. Soft Matter 2023, 19, 8635–8648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Brian, K.; Stella, M. Introducing mindset streams to investigate stances towards STEM in high school students and experts. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Its Appl. 2023, 626, 129074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Coleman, A.; Eser, J.; Mayotte, E.; Sarazin, F.; Schröder, F.; Soldin, D.; Venters, T.; Aloisio, R.; Alvarez-Muñiz, J.; Alves Batista, R.; et al. Ultra high energy cosmic rays The intersection of the Cosmic and Energy Frontiers. Astropart. Phys. 2023, 149, 102819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Junior, W.; Azzolini, F.; Mundim, L.; Porto, A.; Amani, H. Shipyard facility layout optimization through the implementation of a sequential structure of algorithms. Heliyon 2023, 9, e16714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Szlachetko, J.; Szade, J.; Beyer, E.; Błachucki, W.; Ciochoń, P.; Dumas, P.; Freindl, K.; Gazdowicz, G.; Glatt, S.; Guła, K.; et al. SOLARIS National Synchrotron Radiation Centre in Krakow, Poland. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 2023, 138, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Varotsos, C.A.; Krapivin, V.F.; Mkrtchyan, F.A.; Xue, Y. Global Problems of Ecodynamics and Hydrogeochemistry. In Constructive Processing of Microwave and Optical Data for Hydrogeochemical Applications; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 1–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Furtado, V.R.; Vignando, H.; Luz, C.D.; Steinmacher, I.F.; Kalinowski, M.; OliveiraJr, E. Controlled Experimentation of Software Product Lines. In UML-Based Software Product Line Engineering with SMarty; OliveiraJr, E., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 417–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Zhao, Y.; Boley, M.; Pelentritou, A.; Karoly, P.J.; Freestone, D.R.; Liu, Y.; Muthukumaraswamy, S.; Woods, W.; Liley, D.; Kuhlmann, L. Space-time resolved inference-based neurophysiological process imaging: Application to resting-state alpha rhythm. NeuroImage 2022, 263, 119592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Wang, Y.; Laforge, F.; Goun, A.; Rabitz, H. Selective photo-excitation of molecules enabled by stimulated Raman pre-excitation. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2022, 24, 10062–10068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Lucas-Rhimbassen, M. The COST of Joining Legal Forces on a Celestial Body of Law and Beyond: Anticipating Future Clashes between Corpus Juris Spatialis, Lex Mercatoria, Antitrust and Ethics. Space Policy 2022, 59, 101445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Nau, J.; Henke, K.; Streitferdt, D. New Ways for Distributed Remote Web Experiments. In Learning with Technologies and Technologies in Learning; Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems; Auer, M.E., Pester, A., May, D., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; Volume 456, pp. 257–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Engelmann, C.; Kuchar, O.; Boehm, S.; Brim, M.J.; Naughton, T.; Somnath, S.; Atchley, S.; Lange, J.; Mintz, B.; Arenholz, E. The INTERSECT Open Federated Architecture for the Laboratory of the Future. In Accelerating Science and Engineering Discoveries Through Integrated Research Infrastructure for Experiment, Big Data, Modeling and Simulation; Communications in Computer and Information Science; Doug, K., Al, G., Pophale, S., Liu, H., Parete-Koon, S., Eds.; Springer Nature Switzerland: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; Volume 1690, pp. 173–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Tran, N.N.; Gelonch, M.E.; Liang, S.; Xiao, Z.; Sarafraz, M.M.; Tišma, M.; Federsel, H.J.; Ley, S.V.; Hessel, V. Enzymatic pretreatment of recycled grease trap waste in batch and continuous-flow reactors for biodiesel production. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 426, 131703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Pasquinelli, M.; Joler, V. The Nooscope manifested: AI as instrument of knowledge extractivism. AI Soc. 2021, 36, 1263–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Gupta, N.; Kini, P.; Gupta, S.; Darbari, H.; Joshi, N.; Khosravy, M. Six Sigma based modeling of the hydraulic oil heating under low load operation. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 2021, 24, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Demchenko, Y.; Maijer, M.; Comminiello, L. Data Scientist Professional Revisited: Competences Definition and Assessment, Curriculum and Education Path Design. In Proceedings of the 2021 4th International Conference on Big Data and Education, ICBDE ’21, London, UK, 3–5 February 2021; pp. 52–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Wang, R.; Luo, Y.; Jia, H.; Ferrell, J.R.; Ben, H. Development of quantitative 13C NMR characterization and simulation of C, H, and O content for pyrolysis oils based on 13C NMR analysis. RSC Adv. 2020, 10, 25918–25928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Brings, J.; Daun, M.; Weyer, T.; Pohl, K. Analyzing goal variability in cyber-physical system networks. SIGAPP Appl. Comput. Rev. 2020, 20, 19–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Faqeh, R.; Fetzer, C.; Hermanns, H.; Hoffmann, J.; Klauck, M.; Köhl, M.A.; Steinmetz, M.; Weidenbach, C. Towards Dynamic Dependable Systems Through Evidence-Based Continuous Certification. In Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation: Engineering Principles; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Margaria, T., Steffen, B., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; Volume 12477, pp. 416–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Daviran, M.; Longwill, S.M.; Casella, J.F.; Schultz, K.M. Rheological characterization of dynamic remodeling of the pericellular region by human mesenchymal stem cell-secreted enzymes in well-defined synthetic hydrogel scaffolds. Soft Matter 2018, 14, 3078–3089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Wilderen, L.J.G.W.v.; Neumann, C.; Rodrigues-Correia, A.; Kern-Michler, D.; Mielke, N.; Reinfelds, M.; Heckel, A.; Bredenbeck, J. Picosecond activation of the DEACM photocage unravelled by VIS-pump-IR-probe spectroscopy. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2017, 19, 6487–6496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Sarraf, M.; Razak, B.A.; Dabbagh, A.; Nasiri-Tabrizi, B.; Kasim, N.H.A.; Basirun, W.J. Optimizing PVD conditions for electrochemical anodization growth of well-adherent Ta2O5 nanotubes on Ti-6Al-4V alloy. RSC Adv. 2016, 6, 78999–79015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Cink, R.B.; Song, Y. Appropriating scientific vocabulary in chemistry laboratories: A multiple case study of four community college students with diverse ethno-linguistic backgrounds. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2016, 17, 604–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. De Giacomo, G.; Gerevini, A.E.; Patrizi, F.; Saetti, A.; Sardina, S. Agent planning programs. Artif. Intell. 2016, 231, 64–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Zangiabady, M.; Aguilar-Fuster, C.; Rubio-Loyola, J. A Virtual Network Migration Approach and Analysis for Enhanced Online Virtual Network Embedding. In Proceedings of the 12th Conference on International Conference on Network and Service Management, CNSM 2016, Montreal, QC, Canada, 31 October–4 November 2016; pp. 324–329. [Google Scholar]
  142. Hohaus, T.; Gensch, I.; Kimmel, J.; Worsnop, D.R.; Kiendler-Scharr, A. Experimental determination of the partitioning coefficient of β-pinene oxidation products in SOAs. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2015, 17, 14796–14804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Wu, Z.; Sekar, R.; Hsieh, S.j. Study of factors impacting remote diagnosis performance on a PLC based automated system. J. Manuf. Syst. 2014, 33, 589–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Wagner, S.; Kronberger, G.; Beham, A.; Kommenda, M.; Scheibenpflug, A.; Pitzer, E.; Vonolfen, S.; Kofler, M.; Winkler, S.; Dorfer, V.; et al. Architecture and Design of the HeuristicLab Optimization Environment. In Advanced Methods and Applications in Computational Intelligence; Topics in Intelligent Engineering and Informatics; Klempous, R., Nikodem, J., Jacak, W., Chaczko, Z., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; Volume 6, pp. 197–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Gašpar, V.; Madarász, L.; Andoga, R. Scientific Research Information System as a Solution for Assessing the Efficiency of Applied Research. In Advances in Soft Computing, Intelligent Robotics and Control; Topics in Intelligent Engineering and Informatics; Fodor, J., Fullér, R., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; Volume 8, pp. 273–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Alemi, O.; Polajnar, D.; Polajnar, J.; Mumbaiwala, D. A simulation framework for design-oriented studies of interaction models in agent teamwork. In Proceedings of the 2014 Symposium on Agent Directed Simulation, ADS ’14, Tampa, FL, USA, 13–16 April 2014. [Google Scholar]
  147. Klarborg, B.; Lahrmann, H.; NielsAgerholm, n.; Tradisauskas, N.; Harms, L. Intelligent speed adaptation as an assistive device for drivers with acquired brain injury: A single-case field experiment. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2012, 48, 57–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Barišić, A.; Monteiro, P.; Amaral, V.; Goulão, M.; Monteiro, M. Patterns for evaluating usability of domain-specific languages. In Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs, PLoP ’12, Tucson, AZ, USA, 19–26 October 2012. [Google Scholar]
  149. Soldatova, L.N.; Rzhetsky, A. Representation of research hypotheses. J. Biomed. Semant. 2011, 2, S9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Duff, A.; Sanchez Fibla, M.; Verschure, P.F. A biologically based model for the integration of sensory-motor contingencies in rules and plans: A prefrontal cortex based extension of the Distributed Adaptive Control architecture. Presence Brian, Virtual Real. Robot. 2011, 85, 289–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  151. Wombacher, A. A-Posteriori Detection of Sensor Infrastructure Errors in Correlated Sensor Data and Business Workflows. In Business Process Management; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Rinderle-Ma, S., Toumani, F., Wolf, K., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; Volume 6896, pp. 329–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. He, L.; Friedman, A.M.; Bailey-Kellogg, C. Algorithms for optimizing cross-overs in DNA shuffling. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology and Biomedicine, Chicago, IL, USA, 1–3 August 2011; BCB ’11. pp. 143–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Apgar, J.F.; Witmer, D.K.; White, F.M.; Tidor, B. Sloppy models, parameter uncertainty, and the role of experimental design. Mol. Biosyst. 2010, 6, 1890–1900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Sparkes, A.; King, R.D.; Aubrey, W.; Benway, M.; Byrne, E.; Clare, A.; Liakata, M.; Markham, M.; Whelan, K.E.; Young, M.; et al. An Integrated Laboratory Robotic System for Autonomous Discovery of Gene Function. SLAS Technol. 2010, 15, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Barnaud, C.; Bousquet, F.; Trebuil, G. Multi-agent simulations to explore rules for rural credit in a highland farming community of Northern Thailand. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 66, 615–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Yilmaz, L.; Davis, P.; Fishwick, P.A.; Hu, X.; Miller, J.A.; Hybinette, M.; Ören, T.I.; Reynolds, P.; Sarjoughian, H.; Tolk, A. Sustaining the growth and vitality of the M&S discipline. In Proceedings of the 40th Conference on Winter Simulation, Winter Simulation Conference, WSC ’08, Miami, FL, USA, 7–10 December 2008; pp. 677–688. [Google Scholar]
  157. King, R.D.; Karwath, A.; Clare, A.; Dehaspe, L. Logic and the Automatic Acquisition of Scientific Knowledge: An Application to Functional Genomics. In Computational Discovery of Scientific Knowledge; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Džeroski, S., Todorovski, L., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; Volume 4660, pp. 273–289. ISSN 0302-9743, 1611-3349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Brandes, T.; Schwamborn, H.; Gerndt, M.; Jeitner, J.; Kereku, E.; Schulz, M.; Brunst, H.; Nagel, W.; Neumann, R.; Müller-Pfefferkorn, R.; et al. Monitoring cache behavior on parallel SMP architectures and related programming tools. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2005, 21, 1298–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Whelan, K.E.; King, R.D. Intelligent software for laboratory automation. Trends Biotechnol. 2004, 22, 440–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Kell, D.B.; Mendes, P. Snapshots of Systems. In Technological and Medical Implications of Metabolic Control Analysis; Cornish-Bowden, A., Cárdenas, M.L., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2000; pp. 3–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Ma, X.; Huo, Z.; Lu, J.; Wong, Y.D. Deep Forest with SHapley additive explanations on detailed risky driving behavior data for freeway crash risk prediction. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2025, 141, 109787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Li, J.; Chen, H.; Wang, X.B.; Yang, Z.X. A comprehensive gear eccentricity dataset with multiple fault severity levels: Description, characteristics analysis, and fault diagnosis applications. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2025, 224, 112068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Subasi, A.; Qaisar, S.M. Chapter 16—EEG-based emotion recognition using AR burg and ensemble machine learning models. In Artificial Intelligence and Multimodal Signal Processing in Human-Machine Interaction; Subasi, A., Qaisar, S.M., Nisar, H., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2025; pp. 303–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Liu, D.; Zhang, B.; Jiang, Y.; An, P.; Chen, Z. Deep learning driven inverse solving method for neutron diffusion equations and three-dimensional core power reconstruction technology. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2024, 429, 113590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Huang, J.; Huang, S.; Moghaddam, S.K.; Lu, Y.; Wang, G.; Yan, Y.; Shi, X. Deep Reinforcement Learning-Based Dynamic Reconfiguration Planning for Digital Twin-Driven Smart Manufacturing Systems with Reconfigurable Machine Tools. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2024, 20, 13135–13146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Anthony, B. Decentralized AIoT based intelligence for sustainable energy prosumption in local energy communities: A citizen-centric prosumer approach. Cities 2024, 152, 105198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Chang, W.; D’Ascenzo, N.; Antonecchia, E.; Li, B.; Yang, J.; Mu, D.; Li, A.; Xie, Q. Deep denoiser prior driven relaxed iterated Tikhonov method for low-count PET image restoration. Phys. Med. Biol. 2024, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Widanage, C.; Mohotti, D.; Lee, C.; Wijesooriya, K.; Meddage, D. Use of explainable machine learning models in blast load prediction. Eng. Struct. 2024, 312, 118271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Schaefer, M.; Reichl, S.; ter Horst, R.; Nicolas, A.M.; Krausgruber, T.; Piras, F.; Stepper, P.; Bock, C.; Samwald, M. GPT-4 as a biomedical simulator. Comput. Biol. Med. 2024, 178, 108796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Naseer, F.; Khan, M.N.; Tahir, M.; Addas, A.; Aejaz, S.M.H. Integrating deep learning techniques for personalized learning pathways in higher education. Heliyon 2024, 10, e32628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Amuzuga, P.; Bennebach, M.; Iwaniack, J.L. Model reduction for fatigue life estimation of a welded joint driven by machine learning. Heliyon 2024, 10, e30171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Wojnar, T.; Hryszko, J.; Roman, A. Mi-Go: Tool which uses YouTube as data source for evaluating general-purpose speech recognition machine learning models. EURASIP J. Audio Speech Music Process. 2024, 2024, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Jiang, W.; Ding, L. Unsafe hoisting behavior recognition for tower crane based on transfer learning. Autom. Constr. 2024, 160, 105299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Guo, Y.; Yu, X.; Wang, Y.; Huang, K. Health prognostics of lithium-ion batteries based on universal voltage range features mining and adaptive multi-Gaussian process regression with Harris Hawks optimization algorithm. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2024, 244, 109913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Guan, S.; Wang, Y.; Liu, L.; Gao, J.; Xu, Z.; Kan, S. Ultra-short-term wind power prediction method based on FTI-VACA-XGB model. Expert Syst. Appl. 2024, 235, 121185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Hu, X.; Liu, J.; Li, H.; Liu, H.; Xue, X. An effective transformer based on dual attention fusion for underwater image enhancement. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 2024, 10, e1783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  177. Fu, J.; Fang, R. Thermal Fault Warning of Turbine Generators Based on Cluster Heatmap CNN-GRU-Attention Method. In Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Hydrogen Energy, Renewable Energy and Materials; Springer Proceedings in Physics. Kolhe, M.L., Liao, Q., Eds.; Springer Nature Singapore: Singapore, 2024; Volume 399, pp. 125–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Liu, D.; Wang, S.; Fan, Y.; Liang, Y.; Fernandez, C.; Stroe, D.I. State of energy estimation for lithium-ion batteries using adaptive fuzzy control and forgetting factor recursive least squares combined with AEKF considering temperature. J. Energy Storage 2023, 70, 108040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Okuda, K.; Nakajima, K.; Kitamura, C.; Ljungberg, M.; Hosoya, T.; Kirihara, Y.; Hashimoto, M. Machine learning-based prediction of conversion coefficients for I-123 metaiodobenzylguanidine heart-to-mediastinum ratio. J. Nucl. Cardiol. Off. Publ. Am. Soc. Nucl. Cardiol. 2023, 30, 1630–1641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Muckley, E.S.; Vasudevan, R.; Sumpter, B.G.; Advincula, R.C.; Ivanov, I.N. Machine Intelligence-Centered System for Automated Characterization of Functional Materials and Interfaces. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2023, 15, 2329–2340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Foroughi, P.; Brockners, F.; Rougier, J.L. ADT: AI-Driven network Telemetry processing on routers. Comput. Netw. 2023, 220, 109474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Bertin, P.; Rector-Brooks, J.; Sharma, D.; Gaudelet, T.; Anighoro, A.; Gross, T.; Martínez-Peña, F.; Tang, E.L.; Suraj, M.; Regep, C.; et al. RECOVER identifies synergistic drug combinations in vitro through sequential model optimization. Cell Rep. Methods 2023, 3, 100599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Ghasemi, M.; Hasani Zonoozi, M.; Rezania, N.; Saadatpour, M. Predicting coagulation-flocculation process for turbidity removal from water using graphene oxide: A comparative study on ANN, SVR, ANFIS, and RSM models. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2022, 29, 72839–72852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Cao, L.; Su, J.; Wang, Y.; Cao, Y.; Siang, L.C.; Li, J.; Saddler, J.N.; Gopaluni, B. Causal Discovery Based on Observational Data and Process Knowledge in Industrial Processes. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2022, 61, 14272–14283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Novitski, P.; Cohen, C.M.; Karasik, A.; Shalev, V.; Hodik, G.; Moskovitch, R. All-cause mortality prediction in T2D patients with iTirps. Artif. Intell. Med. 2022, 130, 102325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Guevarra, D.; Zhou, L.; Richter, M.H.; Shinde, A.; Chen, D.; Gomes, C.P.; Gregoire, J.M. Materials structure-property factorization for identification of synergistic phase interactions in complex solar fuels photoanodes. NPJ Comput. Mater. 2022, 8, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Zhang, Y.; Xiao, B.; Al-Hussein, M.; Li, X. Prediction of human restorative experience for human-centered residential architecture design: A non-immersive VR—DOE-based machine learning method. Autom. Constr. 2022, 136, 104189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Seifrid, M.; Hickman, R.J.; Aguilar-Granda, A.; Lavigne, C.; Vestfrid, J.; Wu, T.C.; Gaudin, T.; Hopkins, E.J.; Aspuru-Guzik, A. Routescore: Punching the Ticket to More Efficient Materials Development. ACS Cent. Sci. 2022, 8, 122–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  189. Lang, S.; Reggelin, T.; Schmidt, J.; Müller, M.; Nahhas, A. NeuroEvolution of augmenting topologies for solving a two-stage hybrid flow shop scheduling problem: A comparison of different solution strategies. Expert Syst. Appl. 2021, 172, 114666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Gu, P.; Lan, X.; Li, S. Object Detection Combining CNN and Adaptive Color Prior Features. Sensors 2021, 21, 2796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Lucchese, L.V.; de Oliveira, G.G.; Pedrollo, O.C. Investigation of the influence of nonoccurrence sampling on landslide susceptibility assessment using Artificial Neural Networks. CATENA 2021, 198, 105067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Higgins, K.; Valleti, S.M.; Ziatdinov, M.; Kalinin, S.V.; Ahmadi, M. Chemical Robotics Enabled Exploration of Stability in Multicomponent Lead Halide Perovskites via Machine Learning. ACS Energy Lett. 2020, 5, 3426–3436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Rohr, B.; Stein, H.S.; Guevarra, D.; Wang, Y.; Haber, J.A.; Aykol, M.; Suram, S.K.; Gregoire, J.M. Benchmarking the acceleration of materials discovery by sequential learning. Chem. Sci. 2020, 11, 2696–2706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Ghnatios, C.; Hage, R.M.; Hage, I. An efficient Tabu-search optimized regression for data-driven modeling. Data-Based Eng. Sci. Technol. 2019, 347, 806–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Feng, N.; Wang, H.; Hu, F.; Gouda, M.A.; Gong, J.; Wang, F. A fiber-reinforced human-like soft robotic manipulator based on sEMG force estimation. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2019, 86, 56–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Hoef, S.V.D.; Mårtensson, J.; Dimarogonas, D.V.; Johansson, K.H. A Predictive Framework for Dynamic Heavy-Duty Vehicle Platoon Coordination. ACM Trans. Cyber-Phys. Syst. 2019, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Chaudhuri, T.; Soh, Y.C.; Li, H.; Xie, L. A feedforward neural network based indoor-climate control framework for thermal comfort and energy saving in buildings. Appl. Energy 2019, 248, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Rodrigues, A.; Rodrigues, G.N.; Knauss, A.; Ali, R.; Andrade, H. Enhancing context specifications for dependable adaptive systems: A data mining approach. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2019, 112, 115–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Oliveira, P.; Santos Neto, P.; Britto, R.; Rabêlo, R.; Braga, R.; Souza, M. CIaaS—computational intelligence as a service with Athena. Comput. Lang. Syst. Struct. 2018, 54, 95–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Navarro, L.C.; Navarro, A.K.; Rocha, A.; Dahab, R. Connecting the dots: Toward accountable machine-learning printer attribution methods. J. Vis. Commun. Image Represent. 2018, 53, 257–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Fagerholm, F.; Sanchez Guinea, A.; Mäenpää, H.; Münch, J. The RIGHT model for Continuous Experimentation. J. Syst. Softw. 2017, 123, 292–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Taghavifar, H.; Mardani, A. On the modeling of energy efficiency indices of agricultural tractor driving wheels applying adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system. J. Terramechanics 2014, 56, 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Kowalski, K.C.; He, B.D.; Srinivasan, L. Dynamic analysis of naive adaptive brain-machine interfaces. Neural Comput. 2013, 25, 2373–2420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Vidal, S.A.; Marcos, C.A. Toward automated refactoring of crosscutting concerns into aspects. J. Syst. Softw. 2013, 86, 1482–1497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Olejnik-Krugły, A.; Różewski, P.; Zaikin, O.; Sienkiewicz, P. Approach for color management in printing process in open manufacturing systems. 7th Ifac Conf. Manuf. Model. Manag. Control 2013, 46, 2104–2109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Westermann, D.; Happe, J.; Krebs, R.; Farahbod, R. Automated inference of goal-oriented performance prediction functions. In Proceedings of the 27th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, ASE ’12, Essen, Germany, 3–7 September 2012; pp. 190–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Krzhizhanovskaya, V.; Shirshov, G.; Melnikova, N.; Belleman, R.; Rusadi, F.; Broekhuijsen, B.; Gouldby, B.; Lhomme, J.; Balis, B.; Bubak, M.; et al. Flood early warning system: Design, implementation and computational modules. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2011, 4, 106–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Seeger, M.W. Bayesian Inference and Optimal Design for the Sparse Linear Model. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2008, 9, 759–813. [Google Scholar]
  209. Kubera, Y.; Mathieu, P.; Picault, S. Interaction Selection Ambiguities in Multi-agent Systems. In Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology—Volume 02, WI-IAT ’08, Washington, DC, USA, 9–12 December 2008; pp. 75–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Ince, H.; Trafalis, T.B. A hybrid model for exchange rate prediction. Decis. Support Syst. 2006, 42, 1054–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Awate, S.P.; Tasdizen, T.; Foster, N.; Whitaker, R.T. Adaptive Markov modeling for mutual-information-based, unsupervised MRI brain-tissue classification. Med. Image Anal. 2006, 10, 726–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  212. Cheng, S.; Sabes, P.N. Modeling sensorimotor learning with linear dynamical systems. Neural Comput. 2006, 18, 760–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  213. Terada, J.; Vo, H.; Joslin, D. Combining genetic algorithms with squeaky-wheel optimization. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO ’06, Seattle, WA, USA, 8–12 July 2006; pp. 1329–1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Joslin, D.; Poole, W. Agent-based simulation for software project planning. In Proceedings of the 37th Conference on Winter Simulation, Winter Simulation Conference, WSC ’05, Orlando, FL, USA, 4–7 December 2005; pp. 1059–1066. [Google Scholar]
  215. Wai, R.J.; Lin, C.M.; Peng, Y.F. Adaptive hybrid control for linear piezoelectric ceramic motor drive using diagonal recurrent CMAC network. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. 2004, 15, 1491–1506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Adams, F.; McDannald, A.; Takeuchi, I.; Kusne, A.G. Human-in-the-loop for Bayesian autonomous materials phase mapping. Matter 2024, 7, 697–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Aldeghi, M.; Häse, F.; Hickman, R.J.; Tamblyn, I.; Aspuru-Guzik, A. Golem: An algorithm for robust experiment and process optimization. Chem. Sci. 2021, 12, 14792–14807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Hickman, R.J.; Aldeghi, M.; Häse, F.; Aspuru-Guzik, A. Bayesian optimization with known experimental and design constraints for chemistry applications. Digit. Discov. 2022, 1, 732–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Schilter, O.; Gutierrez, D.P.; Folkmann, L.M.; Castrogiovanni, A.; García-Durán, A.; Zipoli, F.; Roch, L.M.; Laino, T. Combining Bayesian optimization and automation to simultaneously optimize reaction conditions and routes. Chem. Sci. 2024, 15, 7732–7741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Epps, R.W.; Volk, A.A.; Reyes, K.G.; Abolhasani, M. Accelerated AI development for autonomous materials synthesis in flow. Chem. Sci. 2021, 12, 6025–6036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Plommer, H.; Betinol, I.O.; Dupree, T.; Roggen, M.; Reid, J.P. Extraction yield prediction for the large-scale recovery of cannabinoids. Digit. Discov. 2024, 3, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Eyke, N.S.; Green, W.H.; Jensen, K.F. Iterative experimental design based on active machine learning reduces the experimental burden associated with reaction screening. React. Chem. Eng. 2020, 5, 1963–1972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Waelder, R.; Park, C.; Sloan, A.; Carpena-Núñez, J.; Yoho, J.; Gorsse, S.; Rao, R.; Maruyama, B. Improved understanding of carbon nanotube growth via autonomous jump regression targeting of catalyst activity. Carbon 2024, 228, 119356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Yoon, J.W.; Kumar, A.; Kumar, P.; Hippalgaonkar, K.; Senthilnath, J.; Chellappan, V. Explainable machine learning to enable high-throughput electrical conductivity optimization and discovery of doped conjugated polymers. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2024, 295, 111812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Fu, W.; Chien, C.F.; Chen, C.H. Advanced quality control for probe precision forming to empower virtual vertical integration for semiconductor manufacturing. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2023, 183, 109461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Lai, N.S.; Tew, Y.S.; Zhong, X.; Yin, J.; Li, J.; Yan, B.; Wang, X. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Workflow for Catalyst Design and Optimization. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2023, 62, 17835–17848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Yonge, A.; Gusmão, G.S.; Fushimi, R.; Medford, A.J. Model-Based Design of Experiments for Temporal Analysis of Products (TAP): A Simulated Case Study in Oxidative Propane Dehydrogenation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2024, 63, 4756–4770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  228. Almeida, A.F.; Branco, S.; Carvalho, L.C.R.; Dias, A.R.M.; Leitão, E.P.T.; Loureiro, R.M.S.; Lucas, S.D.; Mendonça, R.F.; Oliveira, R.; Rocha, I.L.D.; et al. Benchmarking Strategies of Sustainable Process Chemistry Development: Human-Based, Machine Learning, and Quantum Mechanics. Org. Process Res. Dev. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Almeida, A.F.; Ataíde, F.A.P.; Loureiro, R.M.S.; Moreira, R.; Rodrigues, T. Augmenting Adaptive Machine Learning with Kinetic Modeling for Reaction Optimization. J. Org. Chem. 2021, 86, 14192–14198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. Bosten, E.; Pardon, M.; Chen, K.; Koppen, V.; Van Herck, G.; Hellings, M.; Cabooter, D. Assisted Active Learning for Model-Based Method Development in Liquid Chromatography. Anal. Chem. 2024, 96, 13699–13709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. Liang, W.; Zheng, S.; Shu, Y.; Huang, J. Machine Learning Optimizing Enzyme/ZIF Biocomposites for Enhanced Encapsulation Efficiency and Bioactivity. JACS Au 2024, 4, 3170–3182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  232. Cruse, K.; Baibakova, V.; Abdelsamie, M.; Hong, K.; Bartel, C.J.; Trewartha, A.; Jain, A.; Sutter-Fella, C.M.; Ceder, G. Text Mining the Literature to Inform Experiments and Rationalize Impurity Phase Formation for BiFeO3. Chem. Mater. 2024, 36, 772–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  233. Dama, A.C.; Kim, K.S.; Leyva, D.M.; Lunkes, A.P.; Schmid, N.S.; Jijakli, K.; Jensen, P.A. BacterAI maps microbial metabolism without prior knowledge. Nat. Microbiol. 2023, 8, 1018–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  234. Suvarna, M.; Zou, T.; Chong, S.H.; Ge, Y.; Martín, A.J.; Pérez-Ramírez, J. Active learning streamlines development of high performance catalysts for higher alcohol synthesis. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 5844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  235. Chen, J.; Hou, J.; Wong, K.C. Categorical Matrix Completion With Active Learning for High-Throughput Screening. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform. 2020, 18, 2261–2270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. Wang, Y.; Yao, Q.; Kwok, J.T.; Ni, L.M. Generalizing from a few examples: A survey on few-shot learning. ACM Comput. Surv. (Csur) 2020, 53, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Biswas, A.; Md Abdullah Al, N.; Imran, A.; Sejuty, A.T.; Fairooz, F.; Puppala, S.; Talukder, S. Generative adversarial networks for data augmentation. In Data Driven Approaches on Medical Imaging; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023; pp. 159–177. [Google Scholar]
  238. Schumann, R.; Rehbein, I. Active learning via membership query synthesis for semi-supervised sentence classification. In Proceedings of the 23rd conference on computational natural language learning (CoNLL), Hong Kong, China, 3–4 November 2019; pp. 472–481. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the AI-driven experimental design workflow. Available experimental data are used to train AI. The scientist defines an experimental objective, and AI suggests experimental designs to the scientist accordingly or performs them autonomously.
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the AI-driven experimental design workflow. Available experimental data are used to train AI. The scientist defines an experimental objective, and AI suggests experimental designs to the scientist accordingly or performs them autonomously.
Applsci 15 05208 g001
Figure 2. Schematic illustration of the applied methodology.
Figure 2. Schematic illustration of the applied methodology.
Applsci 15 05208 g002
Figure 3. The distribution of all publications before filtering and after filtering.
Figure 3. The distribution of all publications before filtering and after filtering.
Applsci 15 05208 g003
Figure 4. An overview of the different AI classes, methodologies, and techniques used in this survey.
Figure 4. An overview of the different AI classes, methodologies, and techniques used in this survey.
Applsci 15 05208 g004
Figure 5. The distribution of categories (single and hybrid) across the reviewed frameworks.
Figure 5. The distribution of categories (single and hybrid) across the reviewed frameworks.
Applsci 15 05208 g005
Figure 6. The distribution of the frameworks with regard to the degree of automation.
Figure 6. The distribution of the frameworks with regard to the degree of automation.
Applsci 15 05208 g006
Table 1. Number of studies excluded after applying each filter criterion.
Table 1. Number of studies excluded after applying each filter criterion.
IDCriterion# Studies Excluded
FC1No concrete solution104
FC2No AI technique54
FC3Does not focus on experimental design55
FC4Selection of another version0
Table 2. Overview of publications excluded based on each filter criterion.
Table 2. Overview of publications excluded based on each filter criterion.
IDCriterion# Studies Excluded
FC1No concrete solution [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106]
FC2No AI technique [107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160]
FC3Does not focus on experimental design [161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198,199,200,201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214,215]
FC4Selection of another version
Table 3. Overview of the analyzed papers regarding domains, applications, techniques, and tasks.
Table 3. Overview of the analyzed papers regarding domains, applications, techniques, and tasks.
AuthorsDomainApplicationTechniqueTask
Aldeghi et al. [217]General frameworkChemistryTree-based regressionAssistance in robustness estimation
Hickman et al. [218]General frameworkChemistryBOOptimization of experimental constraints
Schilter et al. [219]ChemistryOptimization of different terminal alkynes’ reaction routesBOSelecting experiments and optimizing experimental design
Sadeghi et al. [11]Materials scienceNano-manufacturing of lead-free metal halide perovskite nanocrystalsBOSelecting experiments and optimizing experimental design
Epps et al. [220]Materials scienceMicrofluidic material synthesisSingle-period RL + surrogate model (Naive classifier + GPR)Surrogate model determines the feasibility of experimental parameters and predicts output; RL selects experiments
Plommer et al. [221]BiologyExtraction of cannabinoidsRFPrediction of experimental yields under different experiment conditions; assistance in decision-making
Eyke et al. [222]ChemistryReduction of reaction screeningAL: ENN; single-trained models with MC dropout masksSelecting experiments and optimizing experimental design
Adams et al. [216]Materials scienceComposition-structure phase mappingBOSelecting experiments and optimizing experimental design assisted by humans
Waelder et al. [223]Materials scienceCarbon nanotube growthAL: Jump regression surrogateSelecting experiments and optimizing experimental design
Yoon et al. [224]Materials scienceHigh-throughput electrical conductivity optimization and discovery of doped conjugated polymersRF classifier + LASSO regressionClassifier excludes low conductivity material; regressor predicts experimental output
Fu et al. [225]FabricationQuality control for probe precision forming in semiconductor manufacturingGA (fitness function: PLSR)Selecting experiments and optimizing experimental design
Lai et al. [226]Materials scienceCatalyst design and optimizationLLM + BOLLM extracts process data; BO selects experiments and optimizes experimental design
Yonge et al. [227]ChemistryTemporal analysis of productsModel-based design of experimentsSelecting experiments and optimizing experimental design
Almeida et al. [228]ChemistrySustainable chemistry processesMOBO, AL: RFSelecting experiments and optimizing experimental design
Almeida et al. [229]ChemistryReaction optimization using kinetic modelingAL: RFSelecting experiments and optimizing experimental design
Bosten et al. [230]ChemistryLiquid chromatographyAssisted ALSelecting experiments and optimizing experimental design
Liang et al. [231]Materials scienceSynthesis optimization for formulation of enzymes/ZIFs (zeolitic imidazolate framework)BOSelecting experiments and optimizing experimental design
Cruse et al. [232]Materials scienceFormation of impurity phases in BiFeO3 thin-film synthesisDT classifierPrediction of experimental output based on various conditions
Dama et al. [233]BiologyMicrobial metabolism mappingMulti-period RLSelecting experiments and optimizing experimental design
Suvarna et al. [234]ChemistryHigh-performance catalyst development for higher alcohol synthesisMOBOSelecting experiments and optimizing experimental design
Chen et al. [235]BiologyGuidance of high-throughput screeningAL: Matrix completionSelecting experiments and optimizing experimental design
Orouji et al. [31]ChemistryOptimization of transition metal-based homogeneous catalytic reactionsMOBO + EDNN (Ground-truth simulator for evaluation)Selecting experiments and optimizing experimental design using MOBO, with evaluation by EDNN
Table 4. Overview of the analyzed papers regarding automation, data, online capability, and generalizability.
Table 4. Overview of the analyzed papers regarding automation, data, online capability, and generalizability.
AuthorsAutomationDataOnline-CapableGeneralizable
Aldeghi et al. [217].SupportiveReaction dataYesYes
Hickman et al. [218]Partially autonomousReaction dataYesYes
Schilter et al. [219]Fully autonomousReaction dataYesLimited to different reactions
Sadeghi et al. [11]Fully autonomousSynthesis dataYesLimited due to fluidics lab platform
Epps et al. [220]Fully autonomousSynthesis dataYesLimited to flow chemistry
Plommer et al. [221]SupportiveExtraction data and condition dataNoYes
Eyke et al. [222]Partially autonomousReaction dataYesYes
Adams et al. [216]Partially autonomousX-ray diffraction dataYesLimited to domain experts
Waelder et al. [223]Fully autonomousCatalyst reaction data and Raman spectrumYesLimited to catalyst research
Yoon et al. [224]SupportiveOptical spectra and process dataNoYes
Fu et al. [225]Partially autonomousQuality and process dataYesYes
Lai et al. [226]Partially autonomousText data and catalyst synthesis dataYesYes
Yonge et al. [227]Partially autonomousKinetic process dataYesYes
Almeida et al. [228]Partially autonomousReaction dataYesYes
Almeida et al. [229]Partially autonomousReaction dataYesYes
Bosten et al. [230]Partially autonomousChromatography dataYesYes
Liang et al. [231]Partially autonomousSynthesis dataYesYes
Cruse et al. [232]SupportiveSynthesis dataNoYes
Dama et al. [233]Fully autonomousGrowth dataYesYes
Suvarna et al. [234]Partially autonomousReaction dataYesYes
Chen et al. [235]Partially autonomousCondition dataYesYes
Orouji et al. [31]Partially autonomousCatalyst reaction dataYesLimited to catalyst research
Table 5. Number of papers per domain.
Table 5. Number of papers per domain.
DomainAmount
General frameworks1
Biology3
Chemistry9
Materials science8
Fabrication1
Table 6. Categorical breakdown of applied AI methodologies with their frequency of occurrence. Methodologies that are part of another methodology, such as regression surrogates in BO, are not considered separately. The numbers in parentheses stand for the number of methodologies used independently, without being combined with another methodology.
Table 6. Categorical breakdown of applied AI methodologies with their frequency of occurrence. Methodologies that are part of another methodology, such as regression surrogates in BO, are not considered separately. The numbers in parentheses stand for the number of methodologies used independently, without being combined with another methodology.
CategoryTotal Number (Separate)
Optimization10 (9)
Supervised8 (3)
AL5 (5)
RL2 (1)
Table 7. Overview of methodologies used. Methodologies that are part of another methodology, such as regression surrogates in BO, are not considered separately.
Table 7. Overview of methodologies used. Methodologies that are part of another methodology, such as regression surrogates in BO, are not considered separately.
MethodologyNumber
BO9
GA1
GP regression1
Tree-based regression2
Tree-based classifier2
Naive Bayes Classifier1
LLM1
LASSO regression1
AL5
RL2
Table 8. Overview of techniques used for AI-driven experimental design.
Table 8. Overview of techniques used for AI-driven experimental design.
CategoryMethodology/ Technique Task
OptimizationSOBOSurrogate models:
  • GP regression
  • ENN
  • RF
Acquisition functions:
  • EI
  • PV
Models data using surrogate models and iteratively selects experiments based on surrogate models using acquisition functions; the obtained data are used to optimize the surrogate.
MOBOSurrogate models:
  • GP regression
  • ENN
  • RF
Acquisition function:
  • EHI
Optimizes multiple targets, models data with surrogate models, and iteratively selects experiments based on surrogate models using acquisition functions; the obtained data are used to optimize the surrogate.
OptimizationGAFitness function:
  • PLSR
Determines the “fitness” of parameter combinations and iteratively selects experiments based on the fitness function; biology-inspired optimization using the obtained data. It is used as an additional agent for finding a human-interpretable rule for experimental observations in an RL-based hybrid framework.
SupervisedLLMsChatGPTExtracts data from the literature.
Regression
  • DT
  • RF
  • NN
  • LASSO regression
  • PLSR
  • Jump regression
  • GP regression
Acts as a surrogate model or fitness function; in some frameworks, DTs, RFs, and LASSO regression are used independently to predict experimental output to assist in scientists’ decision-making.
Classification
  • RF classifier
  • Naive Bayes classifier
  • GP classifier
Exclusion of parameter combinations with potentially poor experimental output; GP classifier for integrating human feedback into models.
Active LearningVariousReducing uncertainty:
  • Based on Bayesian statistics
  • Categorical matrix completion
Margin sampling:
  • ENNs
  • Single model with applied MC dropout masks
Acquisition function:
  • Combination of mean square prediction error and LHS
Iteratively selects the most informative experiments while reducing uncertainty and adapts predictive models for experimental output using the obtained data.
Reinforcement LearningSingle-period RLBelief models:
  • ENNs,
  • GP regression
Objective function:
  • Weighted mean-utility function or probability sampling
Decision policy:
  • EI
Selects and optimizes parameters and experiments.
Multi-period RLBelief model:
  • NN
Decision policy:
  • MC search (rollout algorithm)
Selects and optimizes parameters and experiments.
Table 9. The number of papers per automation category.
Table 9. The number of papers per automation category.
AutomationNumber
Fully autonomous5
Partially autonomous13
Supportive4
Table 10. The number of papers with regard to online capability.
Table 10. The number of papers with regard to online capability.
Online CapableNumber
Yes19
No3
Table 11. The number of papers with regard to generalizability.
Table 11. The number of papers with regard to generalizability.
GeneralizabilityNumber
Yes16
Limited6
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nolte, L.; Tomforde, S. A Helping Hand: A Survey About AI-Driven Experimental Design for Accelerating Scientific Research. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 5208. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15095208

AMA Style

Nolte L, Tomforde S. A Helping Hand: A Survey About AI-Driven Experimental Design for Accelerating Scientific Research. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(9):5208. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15095208

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nolte, Lukas, and Sven Tomforde. 2025. "A Helping Hand: A Survey About AI-Driven Experimental Design for Accelerating Scientific Research" Applied Sciences 15, no. 9: 5208. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15095208

APA Style

Nolte, L., & Tomforde, S. (2025). A Helping Hand: A Survey About AI-Driven Experimental Design for Accelerating Scientific Research. Applied Sciences, 15(9), 5208. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15095208

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop