Multimodal Behaviour Trees for Robotic Laboratory Task Automation

Andrew Ian Cooper; Arvind Raveendran Nambiar; Bonilkumar Vijaykumar Tailor; Gabriella Pizzuto; Hadi Beyzaee Juneghani; Hatem Fakhruldeen; Satheeshkumar Veeramani

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 23 references

Multimodal Behaviour Trees for Robotic Laboratory Task Automation

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper reports that behaviour trees whose condition nodes vote across vision, depth, force/torque, and tactile classifiers complete vial capping at 88% and rack insertion at 92% with closed-loop error detection.

desk verdict Two things to know: a useful engineering demo with a safety claim that outruns the data — the false-success failures and the impossibly tight error bars are what to check first. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20399 v1 pith:2QHDVVTZ submitted 2025-06-25 cs.RO

Hatem Fakhruldeen , Arvind Raveendran Nambiar , Satheeshkumar Veeramani , Bonilkumar Vijaykumar Tailor , Hadi Beyzaee Juneghani , Gabriella Pizzuto , Andrew Ian Cooper This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.RO

keywords behaviourtreesmultimodalperceptionlaboratoryautomationvialcappingrackinsertionclosed-loopverificationforce-torquesensingtactile

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that laboratory automation should be closed-loop rather than pre-programmed, and that behaviour trees with condition nodes that fuse several sensory modalities can both execute and verify safety-critical tasks such as vial capping and rack insertion. It reports end-to-end success rates of 88% for capping and 92% for insertion across 25 trials each, with per-modality models that compensate for each other's errors. The significance is that modular, interpretable behaviour trees could replace rigid finite state machines in chemistry labs, reducing human exposure to hazardous materials while improving reliability.

What carries the argument

Behaviour trees with multimodal condition nodes. Each condition node collects predictions from modality-specific pre-trained models (CNN for RGB, CNN for depth, Bi-LSTM for force/torque, random forest on optical-flow features for tactile) and votes according to Equation 1: the task phase is deemed successful if the weighted average of per-modality successes meets the threshold λ = 0.5. Weights and threshold are set manually from per-modality deployment accuracies, and the node acts as a gate between skills in the tree so that a task proceeds only when the current phase is judged complete.

What would settle it

Run 25 further capping trials in which caps are deliberately contaminated or cross-threaded before fastening, then check whether the multimodal node's 'success' verdict matches a physical seal check (for example a leak or torque test); if the node reports success on a vial that is not actually sealed in more than a small number of trials, the error-detection claim would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that embedding multimodal condition nodes inside behaviour trees yields task success rates above 88% on two real laboratory manipulation tasks while also detecting failures, something open-loop finite state machines cannot do. The evidence comes from 25 end-to-end trials per task, with per-modality deployment accuracies that individually range from 76% to 96% but combine via weighted voting to give 88% and 92% task success. The authors further show that fusing modalities improves performance over the best single modality, for example the force/torque model covering the tactile model's errors during fastening.

Load-bearing premise

The manual voting weights and the 0.5 threshold, tuned against per-modality deployment accuracies, stay valid when the whole behaviour tree runs end-to-end, and the injected ±10 mm offsets represent the real variety of failures including cross-threading.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the approach is correct, behaviour trees with multimodal condition nodes could be applied to other lab skills such as pouring, scraping, and injection, with similar gains in reliability from multi-sensor fusion.
The modularity of behaviour trees means a skill like 'grasp cap' transfers directly to other tasks, reducing re-engineering when new laboratory workflows are introduced.
The finding that combining modalities outperforms the best single modality supports continued investment in multi-sensor setups for laboratory robotics.
The reported success rates give a quantitative benchmark for closed-loop lab automation, against which open-loop and LLM-based alternatives can be compared.
Error detection, not just task success, is the safety-critical property: the method flags when a cap is not properly sealed, reducing the risk of human exposure to hazardous chemicals.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The manual weighting scheme could be replaced by learned or online-updated weights using the same per-modality accuracies, potentially improving the 88% figure and removing a calibration burden.
The injected ±10 mm offsets may underrepresent real-world failures such as cross-threading or thread contamination; testing with those conditions would stress the voting threshold more realistically.
Because condition nodes expose which modality voted 'failure', the approach could support a human-in-the-loop setup where a chemist supervises the behaviour tree and overrides decisions with clear information about which sensor flagged the problem.
Since the tactile model was consistently the weakest (76–82% deployment accuracy), a richer tactile representation or an additional modality might push capping success beyond the reported 88%.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Know two things before you read it. It is an honest engineering demonstration, not a conceptual advance: behavior trees with weighted voting over per-modality classifiers, applied to vial capping and rack insertion. It reports real robot trials, per-modality deployment accuracies, and the BT decomposition is clean and modular. The end-to-end numbers (88% capping, 92% insertion) are plausible for a demo.

The statistics are the first problem. The quoted uncertainties (±1.62% to ±1.92% on n=25) are far tighter than binomial standard errors would allow — those are around 6.5%. No method is given. The authors need to report exact binomial confidence intervals or explain their calculation. This is fixable, but as printed the precision is unjustified.

The second problem is the safety claim. Two of the three capping failures were false successes: the BT declared the vial sealed when it wasn't. The abstract says "strong error detection capabilities," but an 8% false-success rate in a task where improper capping can expose people to toxic chemicals is not strong. The voting weights and λ=0.5 were calibrated on injected positional offsets, not on cross-threading or thread contamination — which the paper itself flags as the cause of the tactile false positives. So the generalization to real failure modes is unestablished. The stress-test note lands.

Third, the multimodality-improvement claim is overstated. F/T alone scores 96% on mount cap while the fused node gets 94%; F/T alone gets 94% on insert rack while the fused node gets 91%. The fused system helps in some cases (fasten cap goes from 94%/76% to 100% in single-skill tests) but not consistently. "Significantly improved" is not supported by the tables. There is also manual tuning of the voting weights and the maximum fastening iteration count, which is a caveat but not fatal.

What is genuinely new is the end-to-end data for these two tasks and the explicit embedding of multimodal conditions in a behavior tree. That is a useful data point for lab automation. It deserves a serious referee, but the revision needs corrected statistics, a softer safety statement, and a more careful claim about multimodality. I would read it again after those changes.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes representing laboratory manipulation tasks as behaviour trees whose condition nodes fuse predictions from multiple sensory modalities (RGB, depth, force/torque, and tactile) using weighted voting (Eq. 1). The method is implemented on a Franka Emika Panda and evaluated on two safety-critical tasks: vial screw capping and rack insertion. The authors report per-modality model accuracies, single-skill success rates, and end-to-end success rates of 88% (22/25) for capping and 92% (23/25) for insertion, and claim that the multimodal condition nodes verify successful execution and enable closed-loop error detection.

Significance. The contribution is potentially valuable: it gives a modular and interpretable alternative to open-loop FSM-based lab automation, demonstrates integration of four sensory modalities in real robot experiments, and validates reusable BT skills across two tasks. The explicit goal of closed-loop verification is important for safety-critical chemistry workflows. However, the strength of the experimental support is limited by small sample sizes, inconsistent error reporting, manually tuned fusion parameters, and observed false-success failures; these issues affect the headline claims but are addressable in revision.

major comments (4)

[§IV-B4, Table III] The end-to-end success rates of 88% (22/25) and 92% (23/25) are reported with error bars of ±1.62% and ±1.92%, but no method is given and these values are far smaller than binomial standard errors for n=25 (approximately 6.5% and 5.4%, respectively). The precision of the headline results is therefore not supported; report the uncertainty source and provide confidence intervals or exact binomial tests.
[§IV-B2, Eq. (1), §IV-B4] The voting weights v_i and threshold λ=0.5 are manually assigned, and the maximum fastening iteration count used in the end-to-end test was set by observing the robot. Because these parameters are tuned to the evaluation setup, the end-to-end results are not an independent validation of the method's robustness. An ablation or sensitivity analysis over weights and thresholds is needed to support the claim that multimodal fusion improves over single modalities.
[§IV-B3 and contribution list] The paper states that multimodal condition nodes significantly improved the task success rate compared to single-modality baselines, but no single-modality end-to-end baselines or statistical significance tests are reported. In Table II, the mount cap multimodal success rate (94%) is actually slightly below the F/T deployment accuracy (96%), so the claim of consistent improvement is not supported by the presented data.
[§IV-B4] The two false-success failures in 25 capping trials directly undermine the abstract's claim of 'strong error detection capabilities.' The paper attributes similar tactile false successes to cross-threading or thread contamination (Section IV-B2), which are not included in the injected-offset calibration, and the condition node apparently returned success before the vial was fully sealed. Report false-positive and false-negative rates separately and discuss the implications for the safety-critical use case.

minor comments (6)

[§III-A] The phrase 'falls into into one of three categories' contains a duplicated word.
[§IV-B1] The sentence 'a sequence node that goes executes the skills' is ungrammatical and should be reworded.
[Eq. (1)] The variables N, s_i, and v_i in Eq. (1) should be defined explicitly in the text before or immediately after the equation, including the constraint that the weights sum to one.
[Table III] The rows are ordered 'Rack insertion' then 'Vial screw capping,' while Section IV-B4 discusses capping first; reorder the rows for consistency with the text.
[§V] The claim of 'over 88% task success across numerous trials' overstates the evidence, since only 25 trials were run for each task; qualify the claim by reporting the trial counts.
[Abstract] Consider reporting the exact counts (22/25 and 23/25) and confidence intervals for the success rates rather than only the percentages, given the small sample sizes.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the reported end-to-end success rates are measured robot trials, not derived from the manually chosen voting weights or iteration limits.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: the 88% capping and 92% insertion success rates come from 25 end-to-end trials with a physical robot, not from Eq. 1 or from the manually assigned weights. The voting weights in Eq. 1 and the threshold λ=0.5 are indeed manually set using per-modality deployment accuracies, and the maximum fastening iteration count is also chosen by observing the robot; these are tuned parameters that affect the system's behavior. However, the paper does not compute the reported success rates from these parameters by construction. The false-success failures (2/25) are reported honestly and actually weaken the 'strong error detection' claim, but they are empirical evidence, not a definitional artifact. No load-bearing step reduces to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction: the single-skill success rates in Tables II and V are measured outcomes on separate 50-trial sets, and the claimed improvement over single-modality accuracies is a post-hoc comparison rather than a calculation from the weights. The self-citations ([3], [9]) provide only background context and hardware provenance, not the theoretical justification for the method. The behaviour-tree formalism and the perception models are standard or externally cited, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in via citation. Thus the derivation chain is self-contained in the sense that the headline results are independent measurements, and any concerns about weight tuning or safety are correctness/robustness issues, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on manually tuned voting weights, a fixed threshold, a manually set iteration limit, and assumptions that the sensor classifiers transfer to deployment and that injected offsets mimic real failures. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)

Voting weights v_i per modality = not reported
Equation 1 uses manually assigned weights per modality, set to prioritize model reliability; specific values are not given.
Success threshold lambda = 0.5
Fixed threshold in Eq. 1 for the weighted vote; chosen without sensitivity analysis.
Maximum fasten iteration count = not reported
Determined manually by letting the robot perform the fastening operation multiple times; used as termination condition in the fasten cap fallback node.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Behavior tree execution semantics (tick, running, success, failure) as defined in [5] are correct and applicable to these tasks.
The paper relies on the standard BT semantics without proof, citing Colledanchise and Ogren.
domain assumption Pretrained ImageNet features transfer to laboratory camera images for binary success/failure classification.
ResNet-18 and VGG-19 are initialized with ImageNet weights; transferability is assumed.
ad hoc to paper The manually injected errors (±10 mm offsets, rotations around z-axis) are representative of real laboratory failure modes.
Section IV-B2 describes the offsets; the paper does not validate them against natural failure statistics, and text mentions unmodeled cross-threading and contamination.
ad hoc to paper Weighted voting with threshold 0.5 yields correct task-level success detection when per-modality classifiers are independent and calibrated.
Eq. 1 instantiated with manually chosen weights; no justification beyond empirical accuracy of individual models.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multimodal Behaviour Trees for Robotic Laboratory Task Automation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2QHDVVTZ

@misc{pith2026250620399,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multimodal Behaviour Trees for Robotic Laboratory Task Automation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2QHDVVTZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20399}
}

read the original abstract

Laboratory robotics offer the capability to conduct experiments with a high degree of precision and reproducibility, with the potential to transform scientific research. Trivial and repeatable tasks; e.g., sample transportation for analysis and vial capping are well-suited for robots; if done successfully and reliably, chemists could contribute their efforts towards more critical research activities. Currently, robots can perform these tasks faster than chemists, but how reliable are they? Improper capping could result in human exposure to toxic chemicals which could be fatal. To ensure that robots perform these tasks as accurately as humans, sensory feedback is required to assess the progress of task execution. To address this, we propose a novel methodology based on behaviour trees with multimodal perception. Along with automating robotic tasks, this methodology also verifies the successful execution of the task, a fundamental requirement in safety-critical environments. The experimental evaluation was conducted on two lab tasks: sample vial capping and laboratory rack insertion. The results show high success rate, i.e., 88% for capping and 92% for insertion, along with strong error detection capabilities. This ultimately proves the robustness and reliability of our approach and that using multimodal behaviour trees should pave the way towards the next generation of robotic chemists.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20399 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** BT representation for the vial screw capping task. This task is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Example of data acquired from the vision, F/T and tactile modalities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The BT representation for the rack insertion task. This task is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Example of data acquired from the vision, depth and F/T modalities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[1]

A mobile robotic chemist,

B. Burger, P. M. Maffettone, V . V . Gusev, C. M. Aitchison, Y . Bai, X. Wang, X. Li, B. M. Alston, B. Li, R. Clowes,et al., “A mobile robotic chemist,”Nature, vol. 583, no. 7815, pp. 237–241, 2020

work page 2020
[2]

Self-driving laboratories for chemistry and materials science,

G. Tom, S. P. Schmid, S. G. Baird, Y . Cao, K. Darvish, H. Hao, S. Lo, S. Pablo-Garc´ıa, E. M. Rajaonson, M. Skreta, N. Yoshikawa, S. Corapi, G. D. Akkoc, F. Strieth-Kalthoff, M. Seifrid, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, “Self-driving laboratories for chemistry and materials science,”Chemical Reviews, vol. 124, no. 16, pp. 9633–9732, 2024. PMID: 39137296

work page 2024
[3]

Archemist: Autonomous robotic chemistry system architecture,

H. Fakhruldeen, G. Pizzuto, J. Glawucki, and A. I. Cooper, “Archemist: Autonomous robotic chemistry system architecture,”IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2022

work page 2022
[4]

Organa: A robotic assistant for automated chemistry experimentation and characterization,

K. Darvish, M. Skreta, Y . Zhao, N. Yoshikawa, S. Som, M. Bogdanovic, Y . Cao, H. Hao, H. Xu, A. Aspuru-Guzik, A. Garg, and F. Shkurti, “Organa: A robotic assistant for automated chemistry experimentation and characterization,” 2024

work page 2024
[5]

Colledanchise and P

M. Colledanchise and P. ¨Ogren,Behavior Trees in Robotics and AI: An Introduction. CRC Press, 1st ed., 2018

work page 2018
[6]

Automated synthesis of oxygen- producing catalysts from martian meteorites by a robotic ai chemist,

Q. Zhu, Y . Huang, and D. e. a. Zhou, “Automated synthesis of oxygen- producing catalysts from martian meteorites by a robotic ai chemist,” Nat. Synth, vol. 3, pp. 319–328, 2024

work page 2024
[7]

Development of a robotic system for automatic organic chemistry synthesis,

J. X.-Y . Lim, D. Leow, Q.-C. Pham, and C.-H. Tan, “Development of a robotic system for automatic organic chemistry synthesis,”IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 2185–2190, 2021

work page 2021
[8]

Automated solubility screening platform using computer vision,

P. Shiri, V . Lai, T. Zepel, D. Griffin, J. Reifman, S. Clark, S. Grunert, L. P. Yunker, S. Steiner, H. Situ, F. Yang, P. L. Prieto, and J. E. Hein, “Automated solubility screening platform using computer vision,” iScience, vol. 24, p. 102176, 2021

work page 2021

Show all 23 references

[9]

Modular, multi-robot integration of laboratories: an autonomous workflow for solid-state chemistry,

A. M. Lunt, H. Fakhruldeen, G. Pizzuto, L. Longley, A. White, N. Rankin, R. Clowes, B. Alston, L. Gigli, G. M. Day, A. I. Cooper, and S. Y . Chong, “Modular, multi-robot integration of laboratories: an autonomous workflow for solid-state chemistry,”Chem. Sci., vol. 15, pp. 245...

2024
[10]

Multi-robot, multi-sensor exploration of multifarious environments with full mission aerial autonomy,

G. Best, R. Garg, J. Keller, G. A. Hollinger, and S. Scherer, “Multi-robot, multi-sensor exploration of multifarious environments with full mission aerial autonomy,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 485–512, 2024

2024
[11]

Interactively learning behavior trees from imperfect human demonstrations,

L. Scherf, A. Schmidt, S. Pal, and D. Koert, “Interactively learning behavior trees from imperfect human demonstrations,”Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 10, 2023

2023
[12]

Accelerating laboratory automation through robot skill learning for sample scraping,

G. Pizzuto, H. Wang, H. Fakhruldeen, B. Peng, K. S. Luck, and A. I. Cooper, “Accelerating laboratory automation through robot skill learning for sample scraping,” 2024

2024
[13]

Leveraging multi-modal sensing for robotic insertion tasks in r&d lab- oratories,

A. Butterworth, G. Pizzuto, L. Pecyna, A. I. Cooper, and S. Luo, “Leveraging multi-modal sensing for robotic insertion tasks in r&d lab- oratories,” inIEEE Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE) 2023, 2023

2023
[14]

Autonomous precision pouring from unknown contain- ers,

M. Kennedy, K. Schmeckpeper, D. Thakur, C. Jiang, V . Kumar, and K. Daniilidis, “Autonomous precision pouring from unknown contain- ers,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 2317– 2324, 2019

2019
[15]

High-accuracy injection using a mobile manipulation robot for chem- istry lab automation,

A. Angelopoulos, M. Verber, C. McKinney, J. Cahoon, and R. Alterovitz, “High-accuracy injection using a mobile manipulation robot for chem- istry lab automation,” in2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 10102–10109, 2023

2023
[16]

Learning and executing re-usable behaviour trees from natural language instruction,

G. Suddrey, B. Talbot, and F. Maire, “Learning and executing re-usable behaviour trees from natural language instruction,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 10643–10650, 2022

2022
[17]

Task switching model for acceleration control of multi-dof manipulator using behavior trees,

Y . Tanaka and S. Katsura, “Task switching model for acceleration control of multi-dof manipulator using behavior trees,” inIECON 2023- 49th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, pp. 1–6, 2023

2023
[18]

Deep residual learning for image recognition,

K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,”2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 770–778, 2015

2016
[19]

Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition,

K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman, “Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition,” in3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings(Y . Bengio and Y . LeCun, eds.), 2015

2015
[20]

Long short-term memory,

S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber, “Long short-term memory,”Neural computation, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 1735–1780, 1997

1997
[21]

Lucas-kanade 20 years on: A unifying framework,

S. Baker and I. Matthews, “Lucas-kanade 20 years on: A unifying framework,”International journal of computer vision, vol. 56, pp. 221– 255, 2004

2004
[22]

Random decision forests,

T. K. Ho, “Random decision forests,” inProceedings of 3rd international conference on document analysis and recognition, vol. 1, pp. 278–282, IEEE, 1995

1995
[23]

Digit: A novel design for a low-cost compact high- resolution tactile sensor with application to in-hand manipulation,

M. Lambeta, P.-W. Chou, S. Tian, B. Yang, B. Maloon, V . R. Most, D. Stroud, R. Santos, A. Byagowi, G. Kammerer, D. Jayaraman, and R. Calandra, “Digit: A novel design for a low-cost compact high- resolution tactile sensor with application to in-hand manipulation,”IEEE Robotics...

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A mobile robotic chemist,

B. Burger, P. M. Maffettone, V . V . Gusev, C. M. Aitchison, Y . Bai, X. Wang, X. Li, B. M. Alston, B. Li, R. Clowes,et al., “A mobile robotic chemist,”Nature, vol. 583, no. 7815, pp. 237–241, 2020

work page 2020

[2] [2]

Self-driving laboratories for chemistry and materials science,

G. Tom, S. P. Schmid, S. G. Baird, Y . Cao, K. Darvish, H. Hao, S. Lo, S. Pablo-Garc´ıa, E. M. Rajaonson, M. Skreta, N. Yoshikawa, S. Corapi, G. D. Akkoc, F. Strieth-Kalthoff, M. Seifrid, and A. Aspuru-Guzik, “Self-driving laboratories for chemistry and materials science,”Chemical Reviews, vol. 124, no. 16, pp. 9633–9732, 2024. PMID: 39137296

work page 2024

[3] [3]

Archemist: Autonomous robotic chemistry system architecture,

H. Fakhruldeen, G. Pizzuto, J. Glawucki, and A. I. Cooper, “Archemist: Autonomous robotic chemistry system architecture,”IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2022

work page 2022

[4] [4]

Organa: A robotic assistant for automated chemistry experimentation and characterization,

K. Darvish, M. Skreta, Y . Zhao, N. Yoshikawa, S. Som, M. Bogdanovic, Y . Cao, H. Hao, H. Xu, A. Aspuru-Guzik, A. Garg, and F. Shkurti, “Organa: A robotic assistant for automated chemistry experimentation and characterization,” 2024

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Colledanchise and P

M. Colledanchise and P. ¨Ogren,Behavior Trees in Robotics and AI: An Introduction. CRC Press, 1st ed., 2018

work page 2018

[6] [6]

Automated synthesis of oxygen- producing catalysts from martian meteorites by a robotic ai chemist,

Q. Zhu, Y . Huang, and D. e. a. Zhou, “Automated synthesis of oxygen- producing catalysts from martian meteorites by a robotic ai chemist,” Nat. Synth, vol. 3, pp. 319–328, 2024

work page 2024

[7] [7]

Development of a robotic system for automatic organic chemistry synthesis,

J. X.-Y . Lim, D. Leow, Q.-C. Pham, and C.-H. Tan, “Development of a robotic system for automatic organic chemistry synthesis,”IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 2185–2190, 2021

work page 2021

[8] [8]

Automated solubility screening platform using computer vision,

P. Shiri, V . Lai, T. Zepel, D. Griffin, J. Reifman, S. Clark, S. Grunert, L. P. Yunker, S. Steiner, H. Situ, F. Yang, P. L. Prieto, and J. E. Hein, “Automated solubility screening platform using computer vision,” iScience, vol. 24, p. 102176, 2021

work page 2021