Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Beyond Optimization: Exploring Novelty Discovery in Autonomous Experiments

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that an autonomous experiment which scores candidate measurements by novelty and deliberately samples under-explored regions discovers more diverse physics than one that optimizes a known physical descriptor, with lower…

desk verdict A useful integration of novelty scoring and strategic sampling for self-driving microscopy, but the diversity claim rests on a partly circular metric and single-run comparisons; the improved surrogate accuracy is the real result. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.20254 v1 pith:CR47AXEE submitted 2025-08-27 cs.LG cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Ralph Bulanadi , Jawad Chowdhury , Funakubo Hiroshi , Maxim Ziatdinov , Rama Vasudevan , Arpan Biswas , Yongtao Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords autonomousexperimentsnoveltydiscoveryBayesianoptimizationstrategicsamplingscanningprobemicroscopyactivelearningdeepkernelferroelectricmaterials
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

Autonomous experiments usually aim at a pre-defined target, like maximizing a physical descriptor, and this paper asks whether the same loop can instead be aimed at the unexpected. It introduces INS2ANE, a Bayesian-optimization framework in which the acquisition function uses a novelty score—how unlike previously collected polarization-switching curves a new measurement would be—plus a strategic sampler that pushes measurements into under-sampled regions. On a model ferroelectric dataset, the novelty-driven experiments end with lower prediction error (0.15–0.16 versus 0.30 for the optimizer) and measure more variable, hence more diverse, hysteresis curves than random sampling. The same workflow is demonstrated live on a scanning probe microscope. If the measured-loop variability is accepted as a proxy for discovering new phenomena, the results show that novelty scoring and strategic sampling each contribute to exploration, with the two mechanisms dominant at different stages.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the replacement of a physical scalarizer in the acquisition function by a novelty score. Five scores are examined—Distance to Centroid, Nearest Neighbors, Isolation Forest, One-Class SVM, and Local Outlier Factor—each assigning a uniqueness value to a measured hysteresis loop relative to previously collected loops. INS2ANE couples one of these scores (the paper selects Nearest Neighbors or Isolation Forest for its ferroelectric dataset, after rejecting global scores that penalize low signal-to-noise regions) with SANE, a strategic sampling procedure that applies a non-uniform cost function to favor under-sampled locations over repeated visits to a known optimum. The whole loop is built on a deep kernel learning surrogate that maps structure images to spectroscopy, and the acquisition function decides the next measurement point.

What would settle it

One concrete test: on a sample with phases mapped by an independent structural method, run the three acquisition strategies and count how many previously unseen phase regions each one samples; the central claim fails if the novelty-driven and strategic runs do not find more such regions, or if their extra variability is dominated by noise rather than by distinct physical states.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that novelty scoring plus strategic sampling extends autonomous experiments from optimizing a known scalar descriptor to actively seeking unobserved phenomena. The paper's evidence comes from a ferroelectric dataset with known ground-truth domain structure: an experiment driven to maximize loop area quickly finds large-loop regions but overfits, ending with a normalized mean error (NME) of 0.30; experiments driven by Nearest Neighbor or Isolation Forest novelty scores instead keep sampling diverse regions and end at NME 0.15–0.16. Adding the SANE strategic sampler makes the experiment cluster measurements around local novelty maxima before jumping to distant regions, which initially raises NME (to 0.29–0.39) as it intentionally samples anomalous points, then drops to 0.16 by 200 measurements. In live scanning probe experiments on a ferroelectric film, both novelty-driven schemes raise the variability of collected hysteresis loops above the optimization-driven baseline, and the strategic variant shows a second variability jump at around step 30 attributed to finding a new region. The paper concludes that the novelty scoring system and the strategic sampling system act on different spaces—result space and parameter space, respectively—and contribute independently to discovery.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on treating the spread of the measured polarization-response curves as evidence of new physics, without an independent ground-truth check that high-spread locations actually contain phenomena not present at low-spread locations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Autonomous experiments aimed at novelty, not a fixed descriptor, can reconstruct the physical map more accurately at a fixed measurement budget: the novelty-driven runs end at NME 0.15–0.16 versus 0.30 for the scalarizer-driven run on the model dataset.
  • Strategic sampling makes the experiment temporarily worse by the optimization metric while it deliberately probes anomalous points, so practitioners should expect an NME rise before the payoff.
  • On the model dataset, novelty-driven sampling produces measured-loop variability above random sampling, while the optimization-driven run stays within random expectation, so novelty targeting is what drives diversity rather than the sheer number of samples.
  • The framework runs on a real microscope, not only on stored data, meaning the same acquisition loop can be deployed for live exploration of other materials.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's demonstrations, an adaptive controller that measures recent novelty yield and switches between pure novelty scoring and strategic sampling could outperform either fixed strategy, since the two mechanisms dominate at different phases of the run.
  • Because the five novelty metrics disagree about which regions are novel—for instance, one isolates domain walls while others highlight whole domains—the choice of metric encodes a physics prior; a principled way to select or combine metrics for a target material class would be a natural follow-up.
  • The strongest test the paper leaves open is whether high variability actually coincides with new physics: applying the same loop to a sample with independently mapped phases would settle whether the diversity gain is discovery or just noise.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes INS2ANE (Integrated Novelty Score-Strategic Autonomous Non-Smooth Exploration), a framework for autonomous experiments that augments Bayesian optimization with a novelty scoring module and a strategic sampling module (SANE). The goal is to move beyond optimizing a predefined scalar descriptor and instead promote the discovery of unexpected or unknown physical phenomena. The authors evaluate five novelty scoring methods (Distance to Centroid, Nearest Neighbors, IsolationForest, OneClassSVM, LocalOutlierFactor) on a pre-acquired band excitation piezoresponse spectroscopy (BEPS) dataset of a ferroelectric PbTiO3 sample with known ground-truth domain structures. After selecting NN and IF as suitable, they compare a scalarizer-driven AE, novelty-driven AEs, and INS2ANE variants using two metrics: normalized mean error (NME) of the predicted physical scalarizer and the variability of measured hysteresis loops. They also implement the approach in real autonomous scanning probe microscopy experiments, reporting four realizations. The paper claims that INS2ANE significantly increases the diversity of explored phenomena and enhances the likelihood of discovering previously unobserved phenomena.

Significance. If the central claim were rigorously supported, this work would be a useful contribution to the growing literature on autonomous experimentation by directly addressing the limitation that most AEs only optimize predefined targets. The strength of the paper is that it demonstrates a concrete implementation on both a model dataset and a real experimental platform, and makes code available on GitHub. The exploration of five different novelty scoring methods is thorough. However, the quantitative evidence does not yet support the strong claim of 'increased diversity of explored phenomena' because the primary diversity metric is conceptually tied to the objective being optimized, and the comparisons rest on single runs without error bars. The independent NME result is real but measures surrogate accuracy for a pre-defined scalarizer, not the discovery of new physics. The paper is therefore of interest but needs substantial revision to support its headline claim.

major comments (5)
  1. [Quantitative Assessment, Fig. 4b] The variability metric used to demonstrate 'increased diversity' is the mean standard deviation among measured hysteresis loops; this is essentially the same quantity the novelty scores (NN, IF) are designed to maximize, since both assess how different a measured loop is from the other measured loops. The diversity result in Fig. 4b is therefore partly tautological and does not independently establish that the AE discovers previously unobserved physical phenomena. Since the dataset has known ground-truth classes (out-of-plane domains, in-plane domains, domain walls), I recommend reporting the coverage of these classes over the course of each AE as a non-tautological test, e.g., the fraction of measurement locations that fall into each class, or a class-entropy metric.
  2. [Quantitative Assessment, Fig. 4a] The comparison of NME across AE approaches is based on a single run per configuration, with no error bars or multiple seeds. The initial random points and the stochastic acquisition process make these curves noisy; for instance, the scalarizer-driven AE shows a non-monotonic behavior that is hard to interpret from one trajectory. Without multiple realizations and a statistical summary (mean/median with dispersion), the claim that novelty-driven methods 'end with significantly lower NMEs' is not quantitatively supported. Please provide at least 5–10 independent runs per configuration and report distribution statistics or confidence intervals.
  3. [Implementation with a Pre-Acquired Model Dataset] The selection of NN and IF as the novelty scoring methods is made after inspecting all five scores on the full model dataset, using domain knowledge about the in-plane domains' low SNR and the desired behavior. This post hoc selection, performed on the same data later used for evaluation, risks inflating the reported performance of the chosen methods. The paper would be stronger if it either (a) reports results for all five novelty scorers, (b) uses a held-out subset for method selection, or (c) clearly frames the study as a demonstration of a workflow rather than a head-to-head benchmark of the selected methods.
  4. [Quantitative Assessment, Fig. 4a and Conclusions] The NME metric evaluates how accurately each AE predicts the pre-defined scalarizer (loop area), which is an abstraction of 'physical understanding' but not a direct measure of discovering previously unobserved phenomena. The claim that novelty-driven approaches 'enhance model prediction accuracy' is supported, but the paper's broader claim about enhancing the likelihood of discovering previously unobserved physical phenomena would require a direct evaluation against the known physical classes in the ground-truth dataset. Concretely, does the scalarizer-driven AE fail to sample certain classes that the novelty-driven AEs do sample? This can be quantified with the same ground-truth labels already available.
  5. [Implementation in Autonomous Microscopy, Fig. 5d] The real-experiment comparison uses one IF-based realization and three NN-based realizations, with no error bars or statistical test on the variability curves in Fig. 5d. The interpretation of the 'second jump in variability around step-30' as evidence of strategic sampling discovering a novel region is speculative; the same pattern could arise from random fluctuations or differences in sample regions. Please provide more replicates (at least 5–10 per configuration) and quantitative uncertainty estimates, or temper the interpretation accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Quantitative Assessment] In the comparison to random sampling, the text states 'reaches an average variability of 1.404 (standard deviation: 0.003)'; this appears to be a typo for 0.1404, since the variability values throughout the paper are on the order of 0.1. Please correct.
  2. [Novelty Scoring and Strategic Sampling] The text says 'While LoC could be useful...' in reference to the LocalOutlierFactor method; this should read 'LOF' for consistency with the earlier enumeration.
  3. [Figure 2 and surrounding text] The five novelty-score maps in Fig. 2 are described qualitatively but the color scale is said to be 'arbitrary'; state explicitly whether the scores are normalized to a common range for the figure, and whether the qualitative comparisons (e.g., 'higher novelty') refer to the raw scores.
  4. [Introduction] The term 'image-spectral pairs' in the abstract is slightly awkward; consider 'image–spectroscopy pairs' or 'image and spectroscopy data pairs' for clarity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The diversity claim in Fig. 4b is measured by a variability metric defined as loop uniqueness, which is the same concept the novelty scores are designed to maximize, making that part of the central claim partly tautological; the independent NME improvement is real but measures surrogate accuracy, not physical discovery.

  1. self definitional [Quantitative Assessment of Novelty-Driven AEs, Fig. 4b paragraph; cf. Abstract and Novelty Scoring and Strategic Sampling sections]
    "Larger variability indicates that each measured hysteresis loop is more unique with respect to other measured loops."

    The paper's headline evidence for 'increased diversity of explored phenomena' is Fig. 4b, where variability is defined as the mean of the standard deviation of measured hysteresis loops. The novelty scores being optimized are defined in the same terms: the abstract describes 'a novelty scoring system that evaluates the uniqueness of experimental results,' and the method section states the novelty estimation system 'assigns a novelty score to each data point based on its uniqueness relative to other observed results.' The acquisition function then selects locations predicted to maximize this uniqueness score.

full rationale

The NME comparison is a genuine, non-circular empirical result: novelty-driven AEs end with lower normalized mean error on the physical scalarizer than the scalarizer-driven AE, and this is not encoded in the definitions. The central diversity claim, however, is circular in part because its quantitative metric (variability of measured loops) is essentially the same 'uniqueness relative to other loops' construct that the novelty scores are built to maximize. The paper itself defines variability as loop uniqueness explicitly. Because the authors do not compare coverage of known ground-truth classes, the only quantitative support for the diversity claim is this near-identical metric, while the NME result speaks to model accuracy rather than novelty discovery. The SANE component is cited from prior work by the authors but is used as an off-the-shelf algorithm and is not itself derived from the present claims, so it does not add circularity. Overall: one central metric is partly tautological, but an independent NME improvement exists, so the paper is not fully circular.

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

The central contribution rests on a small number of free hyperparameters and, more importantly, on the domain assumption that statistical outlierness in a scalarized descriptor space is a proxy for physical novelty. The evaluation metric for diversity is derived from the same quantities the novelty score optimizes, which inflates the apparent success.

free parameters (4)
  • Number of neighbors for NN novelty score = not specified
    The k in nearest-neighbors novelty affects how local the score is; no value is reported in the main text.
  • IsolationForest hyperparameters = not specified
    Contamination fraction and tree count influence outlier scores; defaults from scikit-learn are presumably used but not stated.
  • Deep kernel learning architecture hyperparameters = not specified
    The DKL surrogate is borrowed from prior work [23]; its architecture, learning rate, and epoch count are not given here.
  • Hysteresis loop scalar descriptors = loop area and related quantities
    The physical scalarizer is a predefined descriptor chosen by domain knowledge; this is the target of optimization in the baseline and the evaluation metric for NME.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Scikit-learn outlier detection implementations correctly compute the intended mathematical scores.
    The novelty scores rely on scikit-learn's NN, IF, OC-SVM, and LOF implementations without independent verification.
  • domain assumption High outlier scores in the hysteresis-loop descriptor space correspond to scientifically relevant novelty rather than artifacts or noise.
    This is the core interpretive step that connects a statistical outlier score to 'novel physical phenomena'.
  • domain assumption The pre-acquired BEPS dataset's domain labels (out-of-plane, in-plane, domain walls) are accurate and representative.
    The model validation relies on this ground truth to judge whether sampled regions are diverse.
  • domain assumption The variability metric (mean standard deviation of measured loops) is a meaningful measure of discovery value.
    The paper uses variability as the primary evidence of novelty discovery without validating it against actual new physics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beyond Optimization: Exploring Novelty Discovery in Autonomous Experiments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CR47AXEE

@misc{pith2026250820254,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beyond Optimization: Exploring Novelty Discovery in Autonomous Experiments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CR47AXEE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20254}
}
read the original abstract

Autonomous experiments (AEs) are transforming how scientific research is conducted by integrating artificial intelligence with automated experimental platforms. Current AEs primarily focus on the optimization of a predefined target; while accelerating this goal, such an approach limits the discovery of unexpected or unknown physical phenomena. Here, we introduce a novel framework, INS2ANE (Integrated Novelty Score-Strategic Autonomous Non-Smooth Exploration), to enhance the discovery of novel phenomena in autonomous experimentation. Our method integrates two key components: (1) a novelty scoring system that evaluates the uniqueness of experimental results, and (2) a strategic sampling mechanism that promotes exploration of under-sampled regions even if they appear less promising by conventional criteria. We validate this approach on a pre-acquired dataset with a known ground truth comprising of image-spectral pairs. We further implement the process on autonomous scanning probe microscopy experiments. INS2ANE significantly increases the diversity of explored phenomena in comparison to conventional optimization routines, enhancing the likelihood of discovering previously unobserved phenomena. These results demonstrate the potential for AE to enhance the depth of scientific discovery; in combination with the efficiency provided by AEs, this approach promises to accelerate scientific research by simultaneously navigating complex experimental spaces to uncover new phenomena.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Autonomous experimentation systems for materials development: A community perspective,

    E. Stach et al. , “Autonomous experimentation systems for materials development: A community perspective,” Matter, vol. 4, no. 9, pp. 2702–2726, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Bayesian active learning for scanning probe microscopy: From Gaussian processes to hypothesis learning,

    M. Ziatdinov, Y . Liu, K. Kelley, R. Vasudevan, and S. V . Kalinin, “Bayesian active learning for scanning probe microscopy: From Gaussian processes to hypothesis learning,” ACS nano, vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 13492–13512, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Autonomous experiments using active learning and AI,

    Z. Ren, Z. Ren, Z. Zhang, T. Buonassisi, and J. Li, “Autonomous experiments using active learning and AI,” Nature Reviews Materials, vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 563–564, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    The rise of self -driving labs in chemical and materials sciences,

    M. Abolhasani and E. Kumacheva, “The rise of self -driving labs in chemical and materials sciences,” Nature Synthesis, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 483–492, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Self -driving laboratories for chemistry and materials science,

    G. Tom et al. , “Self -driving laboratories for chemistry and materials science,” Chemical Reviews, vol. 124, no. 16, pp. 9633–9732, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Shaping the Future of Self -Driving Autonomous Laboratories Workshop,

    R. F. Da Silva et al. , “Shaping the Future of Self -Driving Autonomous Laboratories Workshop,” 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Self -driving laboratory for accelerated discovery of thin -film materials,

    B. P. MacLeod et al. , “Self -driving laboratory for accelerated discovery of thin -film materials,” Science Advances, vol. 6, no. 20, p. eaaz8867, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Autonomous chemical experiments: Challenges and perspectives on establishing a self -driving lab,

    M. Seifrid et al. , “Autonomous chemical experiments: Challenges and perspectives on establishing a self -driving lab,” Accounts of Chemical Research , vol. 55, no. 17, pp. 2454 – 2466, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    An autonomous laboratory for the accelerated synthesis of novel materials,

    N. J. Szymanski et al. , “An autonomous laboratory for the accelerated synthesis of novel materials,” Nature, vol. 624, no. 7990, pp. 86–91, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Accelerated AI development for autonomous materials synthesis in flow,

    R. W. Epps, A. A. V olk, K. G. Reyes, and M. Abolhasani, “Accelerated AI development for autonomous materials synthesis in flow,” Chemical science, vol. 12, no. 17, pp. 6025 –6036, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Autonomy in materials research: a case study in carbon nanotube growth,

    P. Nikolaev et al. , “Autonomy in materials research: a case study in carbon nanotube growth,” npj Computational Materials, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 2016

    2016

  4. [12]

    Learning the right channel in multimodal imaging: automated experiment in piezoresponse force microscopy,

    Y . Liu, R. K. Vasudevan, K. P. Kelley, H. Funakubo, M. Ziatdinov, and S. V . Kalinin, “Learning the right channel in multimodal imaging: automated experiment in piezoresponse force microscopy,” npj Computational Materials, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 34, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Exploring physics of ferroelectric domain walls in real time: deep learning enabled scanning probe microscopy,

    Y . Liu, K. P. Kelley, H. Funakubo, S. V . Kalinin, and M. Ziatdinov, “Exploring physics of ferroelectric domain walls in real time: deep learning enabled scanning probe microscopy,” Advanced Science, vol. 9, no. 31, p. 2203957, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Enabling autonomous scanning probe microscopy imaging of single molecules with deep learning,

    J. Sotres, H. Boyd, and J. F. Gonzalez -Martinez, “Enabling autonomous scanning probe microscopy imaging of single molecules with deep learning,” Nanoscale, vol. 13, no. 20, pp. 9193–9203, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Active meta-learning for predicting and selecting perovskite crystallization experiments,

    V . Shekar et al., “Active meta-learning for predicting and selecting perovskite crystallization experiments,” The Journal of Chemical Physics, vol. 156, no. 6, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Tailoring Molecular Space to Navigate Phase Complexity in Cs-Based Quasi- 2D Perovskites via Gated -Gaussian-Driven High-Throughput Discovery,

    M. Um et al., “Tailoring Molecular Space to Navigate Phase Complexity in Cs-Based Quasi- 2D Perovskites via Gated -Gaussian-Driven High-Throughput Discovery,” Advanced Energy Materials, vol. 15, no. 16, p. 2404655, 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    Active learning driven multi -property inverse design of spinel solar cells,

    H. Wang, H. Liu, X. Liu, L. Peng, J. Wu, and J. Lin, “Active learning driven multi -property inverse design of spinel solar cells,” Solar Energy, vol. 299, p. 113703, 2025

    2025

  10. [18]

    Active learning of ligands that enhance perovskite nanocrystal luminescence,

    M. A. Kim, Q. Ai, A. J. Norquist, J. Schrier, and E. M. Chan, “Active learning of ligands that enhance perovskite nanocrystal luminescence,” ACS nano, vol. 18, no. 22, pp. 14514–14522, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Machine learning for in -situ composition mapping in a self -driving magnetron sputtering system,

    S. Jarl, J. Sjölund, R. J. Frost, A. Holst, and J. J. Scragg, “Machine learning for in -situ composition mapping in a self -driving magnetron sputtering system,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.05999, 2025

    2025

  12. [20]

    Autonomous sputter synthesis of thin film nitrides with composition controlled by Bayesian optimization of optical plasma emission,

    D. M. Fébba et al., “Autonomous sputter synthesis of thin film nitrides with composition controlled by Bayesian optimization of optical plasma emission,” APL Materials, vol. 11, no. 7, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Autonomous synthesis of thin film materials with pulsed laser deposition enabled by in situ spectroscopy and automation,

    S. B. Harris et al., “Autonomous synthesis of thin film materials with pulsed laser deposition enabled by in situ spectroscopy and automation,” Small Methods, vol. 8, no. 9, p. 2301763, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Exploring the relationship of microstructure and conductivity in metal halide perovskites via active learning-driven automated scanning probe microscopy,

    Y . Liu et al., “Exploring the relationship of microstructure and conductivity in metal halide perovskites via active learning-driven automated scanning probe microscopy,” The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, vol. 14, no. 13, pp. 3352–3359, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Experimental discovery of structure –property relationships in ferroelectric materials via active learning,

    Y . Liu, K. P. Kelley, R. K. Vasudevan, H. Funakubo, M. A. Ziatdinov, and S. V . Kalinin, “Experimental discovery of structure –property relationships in ferroelectric materials via active learning,” Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 341–350, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Multiscale structure-property discovery via active learning in scanning tunneling microscopy,

    G. Narasimha et al., “Multiscale structure-property discovery via active learning in scanning tunneling microscopy,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07074, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Physics discovery in nanoplasmonic systems via autonomous experiments in scanning transmission electron microscopy,

    K. M. Roccapriore, S. V . Kalinin, and M. Ziatdinov, “Physics discovery in nanoplasmonic systems via autonomous experiments in scanning transmission electron microscopy,” Advanced Science, vol. 9, no. 36, p. 2203422, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Disentangling electronic transport and hysteresis at individual grain boundaries in hybrid perovskites via automated scanning probe microscopy,

    Y . Liu et al., “Disentangling electronic transport and hysteresis at individual grain boundaries in hybrid perovskites via automated scanning probe microscopy,” ACS nano, vol. 17, no. 10, pp. 9647–9657, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    A dynamic Bayesian optimized active recommender system for curiosity - driven partially Human -in-the-loop automated experiments,

    A. Biswas et al., “A dynamic Bayesian optimized active recommender system for curiosity - driven partially Human -in-the-loop automated experiments,” npj Computational Materials , vol. 10, no. 1, p. 29, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Polarization switching on the open surfaces of the wurtzite ferroelectric nitrides: ferroelectric subsystems and electrochemical reactivity,

    Y . Liu et al., “Polarization switching on the open surfaces of the wurtzite ferroelectric nitrides: ferroelectric subsystems and electrochemical reactivity,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.14452 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Data -science driven autonomous process optimization,

    M. Christensen et al. , “Data -science driven autonomous process optimization,” Communications Chemistry, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 112, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Highly parallel optimisation of chemical reactions through automation and machine intelligence,

    J. W. Sin, S. L. Chau, R. P. Burwood, K. Püntener, R. Bigler, and P. Schwaller, “Highly parallel optimisation of chemical reactions through automation and machine intelligence,” Nature Communications, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 6464, 2025

    2025

  23. [31]

    Atlas: a brain for self -driving laboratories,

    R. J. Hickman et al., “Atlas: a brain for self -driving laboratories,” Digital Discovery, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 1006–1029, 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    Coexistence and Interplay of Two Ferroelectric Mechanisms in Zn1 - xMgxO,

    J. Yang et al. , “Coexistence and Interplay of Two Ferroelectric Mechanisms in Zn1 - xMgxO,” Advanced Materials, vol. 36, no. 39, p. 2404925, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Active oversight and quality control in standard Bayesian optimization for autonomous experiments,

    S. B. Harris, R. Vasudevan, and Y . Liu, “Active oversight and quality control in standard Bayesian optimization for autonomous experiments,” npj Computational Materials, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 23, 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    Probing out -of-distribution generalization in machine learning for materials,

    K. Li et al. , “Probing out -of-distribution generalization in machine learning for materials,” Communications Materials, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 9, 2025

    2025

  27. [35]

    Curiosity Driven Exploration to Optimize Structure-Property Learning in Microscopy,

    A. Vatsavai et al., “Curiosity Driven Exploration to Optimize Structure-Property Learning in Microscopy,” Digital Discovery, 2025

    2025

  28. [36]

    Curiosity -driven exploration by self - supervised prediction,

    D. Pathak, P. Agrawal, A. A. Efros, and T. Darrell, “Curiosity -driven exploration by self - supervised prediction,” in International conference on machine learning , 2017, pp. 2778 – 2787

    2017

  29. [37]

    Exploration by random network distillation,

    Y . Burda, H. Edwards, A. Storkey, and O. Klimov, “Exploration by random network distillation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.12894, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    AEcroscopy: a software–hardware framework empowering microscopy toward automated and autonomous experimentation,

    Y . Liu et al., “AEcroscopy: a software–hardware framework empowering microscopy toward automated and autonomous experimentation,” Small Methods , vol. 8, no. 10, p. 2301740, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Automated experiments of local non -linear behavior in ferroelectric materials,

    Y . Liu et al. , “Automated experiments of local non -linear behavior in ferroelectric materials,” Small, vol. 18, no. 48, p. 2204130, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Scientific exploration with expert knowledge (SEEK) in autonomous scanning probe microscopy with active learning,

    U. Pratiush, H. Funakubo, R. Vasudevan, S. V . Kalinin, and Y . Liu, “Scientific exploration with expert knowledge (SEEK) in autonomous scanning probe microscopy with active learning,” Digital Discovery, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 252–263, 2025

    2025

  33. [41]

    Scikit -learn: Machine learning in Python,

    F. Pedregosa et al. , “Scikit -learn: Machine learning in Python,” the Journal of machine Learning research, vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011

    2011

  34. [42]

    SANE: strategic autonomous non-smooth exploration for multiple optima discovery in multi -modal and non- differentiable black-box functions,

    A. Biswas, R. Vasudevan, R. Pant, I. Takeuchi, H. Funakubo, and Y . Liu, “SANE: strategic autonomous non-smooth exploration for multiple optima discovery in multi -modal and non- differentiable black-box functions,” Digital Discovery, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 853–867, 2025

    2025

  35. [43]

    INS2ANE. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/rbulanadi/INS2ANE

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.