Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Self-Driving Laboratory Optimizes the Lower Critical Solution Temperature of Thermoresponsive Polymers

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper demonstrates that a low-cost, closed-loop laboratory can tune the phase-transition temperature of a thermoresponsive polymer to a user-set target within two or three Bayesian-optimization-guided experiments.

desk verdict Solid, accessible frugal-twin SDL demo with plausible BO convergence, but the uncalibrated IR sensor leaves the absolute LCST targets unverified. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.05351 v1 pith:HBK7BVKE submitted 2025-09-02 cond-mat.soft cs.LG

Guoyue Xu , Renzheng Zhang , Tengfei Luo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softcs.LG
keywords self-drivinglaboratoryBayesianoptimizationlowercriticalsolutiontemperaturePNIPAMthermoresponsivepolymersHofmeisterseriesGaussianprocessregressionclosed-loopexperimentation
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 aims to establish that a frugal, self-driving laboratory—built from pumps, LEDs, photodiodes, Peltier heaters, and an Arduino—can replace trial-and-error materials tuning with closed-loop Bayesian optimization. On the testbed polymer PNIPAM, the system tunes the lower critical solution temperature (LCST) by choosing salt concentrations in two- and three-salt mixtures. The strongest evidence is convergence: a 26 °C target is reached at 26.08 ± 0.24 °C after two BO rounds, a 25 °C target at 24.93 ± 0.14 °C after two rounds, a 27 °C target at 26.83 ± 0.18 °C after three rounds, and a five-round verification lands at 25.04 ± 0.19 °C after deliberate off-target exploration. If correct, this means accessible, low-cost autonomous experimentation can efficiently navigate a complex multi-component chemical space and recover from exploratory misses.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is Bayesian optimization built on a Gaussian Process Regression surrogate. For the two-salt system, the GP uses a Matérn kernel with white noise; for the three-salt system, a composite kernel with linear, RBF, and Matérn components captures both a dominant linear trend and nonlinear ion interactions. The acquisition function is a target-seeking expected improvement, where improvement is defined as the negative absolute difference between predicted and target LCST, I(x) = -|ypred(x) - ytarget|. This formulation directs the platform toward compositions predicted to be close to the target while still allowing exploration of uncertain regions, which is what the authors

What would settle it

Re-run the five-round verification campaign with a freshly synthesized hydrogel batch and a calibrated contact thermometer placed alongside the non-contact IR sensor. If the same nominal compositions yield LCSTs that drift by more than the reported standard deviations across rounds, or if the BO loop fails to converge to the 25 °C target within two rounds after the exploratory misses, the central claim of learning-driven self-correction would be undermined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a closed loop of robotic fluid handling, in-situ optical LCST measurement, and a Gaussian-process surrogate model with a target-seeking expected-improvement acquisition function can converge to a specified PNIPAM LCST in remarkably few experiments. In the two-salt space (NaCl–NaBr), after a 13-point initial dataset, the second BO-selected composition gives 26.08 ± 0.24 °C against a 26 °C target. In the three-salt space (NaCl–NaBr–CaCl2), initialized with seven diverse points, the platform reaches 24.93 ± 0.14 °C (target 25 °C) in two rounds and 26.83 ± 0.18 °C (target 27 °C) in three. A five-round verification targeting 25 °C shows the system deliberately exploring

Load-bearing premise

The polymer stock and the temperature measurement are stationary across the entire campaign, so the Gaussian process trained on early rounds remains valid in later rounds—if the hydrogel degrades, the IR sensor drifts, or different batches are used, the observed convergence and self-correction could reflect a shifting baseline rather than learning.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, users can specify a desired LCST and reach it with only a handful of automated experiments after a modest hand-picked initial dataset, avoiding exhaustive salt-composition screening.
  • Off-target measurements are not wasted: the GP is updated with every result, so exploratory misses actively improve the model and enable later hits—demonstrating a practical exploration-exploitation trade-off in real time.
  • The same hardware/software blueprint could be adapted to other polymer systems or colloidal formulations whose phase behavior depends on continuous compositional variables, since the optimization loop is chemistry-agnostic beyond the LCST measurement.
  • The reported within-0.2 °C convergence suggests that precision in target-seeking is limited more by measurement reproducibility than by the optimizer, implying further hardware calibration could tighten the achievable tolerance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension, not tested in the paper, is to apply the same target-seeking EI to other tunable continuous properties—cloud point, stiffness, viscosity, or color—where a GP can model the response surface and a cheap optical or thermal readout exists.
  • The apparent speed of convergence likely depends on the smoothness of the salt–LCST landscape; salt mixtures with strong synergistic or non-monotonic effects may require a larger initial set or a richer kernel than the ones used here.
  • The paper leaves implicit a sharper cost claim: the frugal-twin concept would be even more convincing with a quantified per-experiment cost or a direct head-to-head against a commercial liquid-handling system on the same optimization task.
  • The self-correction narrative would be strengthened by a control experiment where the same five-round loop is run with a fixed random exploration schedule, isolating how much of the recovery is due to the EI acquisition function rather than simply adding more data.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper describes a low-cost, five-module 'frugal twin' autonomous platform for optimizing the lower critical solution temperature (LCST) of PNIPAM hydrogels in two- and three-salt solutions. The platform combines peristaltic-pump fluid handling, Peltier-based temperature control with non-contact IR sensing, and Gaussian-process regression (GPR) with an expected-improvement (EI) acquisition function to seek user-specified LCST targets. Reported results include a 13-point initialized two-salt campaign reaching 26.08 ± 0.24 °C for a 26 °C target, a 7-point initialized three-salt campaign reaching 24.93 ± 0.14 °C and 26.83 ± 0.18 °C for 25 °C and 27 °C targets, and a five-round verification with deliberate off-target exploration and final convergence to 25.04 ± 0.19 °C. Hardware validation reports fluid-handling linearity R² = 0.998, temperature-control SD = 0.30 °C, and LCST repeatability SD = 0.15 °C.

Significance. If the absolute temperature readings are accepted, the paper provides an accessible, reproducible demonstration of closed-loop Bayesian optimization for soft materials, with credible experimental convergence and a useful open-source hardware/software blueprint. The experiments are genuine measurements rather than model outputs, so the active-learning loop is not circular. The main significance of the work—low-cost autonomous optimization of polymer phase-transition temperatures—is real and would be valuable to the community. However, the central quantitative claim depends on the accuracy of an uncalibrated non-contact IR sensor, and the reported salt-free LCST of 30.59 °C is ~1.4 °C below the canonical ~32 °C for PNIPAM without a discussion of the discrepancy. The strengths (open code, quantitative hardware validation, replicated measurements) are notable, but the absolute-target claim needs additional validation before the results can be fully credited.

major comments (2)
  1. [Experimental (Hardware) / Figure 2] The absolute LCST values reported as 'hits' rest entirely on the non-contact IR sensor, but the manuscript reports no calibration of that sensor against a reference thermometer, no emissivity correction, and no check of probe distance or drift. Figure 2B/C validates only precision (repeatability), not accuracy. The measured salt-free PNIPAM LCST of 30.59 ± 0.15 °C is ~1.4 °C below the canonical ~32 °C cited in the Introduction, and this discrepancy is not discussed. If the offset is sensor bias, all reported target values (26.08, 24.93, 26.83, 25.04 °C) could be shifted by a constant and would not verify the nominal absolute targets; if the bias drifts over the seven-round campaign, the 'self-correction' trajectory in Figure 5 could be confounded. Please provide an independent calibration (e.g., a thermocouple-in-vial comparison over 20–35 °C) or explicitly reframe the results as relativ
  2. [Chemicals and materials / Figure 5] The closed-loop interpretation assumes the polymer stock and the sensor response are stationary across the entire campaign. The synthesis section describes a single hydrogel preparation but gives no batch count, no uniformity check across the five modules, and no time-stability test; replicate scatter (SD 0.15–0.39 °C) is treated as independent measurement noise. If the hydrogel batch degrades or the IR reading drifts between rounds, a GP trained on early data becomes invalid in later rounds, and the Figure 5 sequence of off-target excursions followed by a final hit could partly reflect a shifting baseline rather than active learning. Please report batch identity and stability data, and either recalibrate between rounds or show that control samples give constant LCST over the campaign.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Equations (3)–(4)] The GP hyperparameters are reported in standardized units, but some values are unusual: for the two-salt kernel the length scales are [12.3, 15.3] on unit-variance inputs, and for the three-salt kernel the Matérn length scales are [0.0139, 100, 100], which mixes an extremely short scale with effectively infinite scales. Please state the optimization bounds and whether these values are identifiable from the small datasets or include a sensitivity check.
  2. [Eq. (6)–(7)] The EI formula is unconventional: I(x) is defined as the negative absolute error, so it is negative everywhere, while EI is written as I(x)Φ(z) + σ(x)φ(z) with z = −|ypred − ytarget|/σ(x). In standard EI the improvement is nonnegative. Please clarify the derivation or define an expected improvement for target seeking that is manifestly nonnegative, and explain how the maximization is implemented.
  3. [Figure 3 caption] The caption describes panels (B, D) together after the second round, but panel D appears to show the EI landscape used for the third-round selection; the ordering and timing of panels (A–D) should be clarified.
  4. [Introduction / Experimental] Typographical issues: 'tunning' should be 'tuning', 'complicate' should be 'complicated'. Also, the salt-free LCST measurement of 30.59 °C should be explicitly reconciled with the 'typically around 32 °C' statement in the Introduction, even after calibration is addressed.
  5. [Data availability] The GitHub repository is said to contain source code for control and data analysis, but no raw measurement data are mentioned. Including the raw temperature/transmittance traces and salt concentrations for every BO round would strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: reported LCST hits are physical measurements at BO-selected compositions, not model outputs; self-citations are contextual only.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical results from a closed-loop experimental campaign, not derived quantities. The GP surrogate models (Eqs. 3 and 4) are fit to measured LCST data, the EI acquisition function (Eqs. 5-7) proposes compositions, and the reported converged LCSTs (e.g., 26.08 °C, 24.93 °C, 26.83 °C, 25.04 °C) are freshly measured values at those proposed compositions, not predictions or fitted outputs. No equation in the paper reduces a reported result to a fitted parameter, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The leave-one-out R² of 0.941 is an internal validation metric, not evidence of circularity. The self-citations ([38]-[41]) are cited only as prior examples of Bayesian optimization in materials discovery and do not carry any load-bearing argument for the present convergence. No uniqueness theorem is imported, no ansatz is smuggled in via citation, and no known result is merely renamed. The uncalibrated IR sensor concern raised in the skeptic analysis is a legitimate measurement-accuracy/validation issue, but it is not a circularity issue and therefore does not affect the circularity score. The derivation chain is self-contained: measurements inform the model, the model proposes experiments, and new measurements validate the outcome.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Everything load-bearing beyond the hardware build: five fitted GP hyperparameter entries, an unstated target tolerance, and five axioms about surrogacy, stationarity, the transmittance proxy, smoothness, and the acquisition's validity. No invented entities. The fitted hyperparameters are standard for surrogates, but the 3-salt kernel's 0.0139 length scale and the undefined acceptance margin are the entries that most weaken the paper's claims as stated.

free parameters (5)
  • 2-salt GPR signal variance σ²_f = 12.25 (standardized units)
    Fitted by maximizing log-marginal likelihood on the 13-point initial dataset; sets the amplitude of the Matern component in Eq. (3).
  • 2-salt GPR anisotropic length scales ℓ = [12.3, 15.3]
    Fitted on the same 13 points; cited as evidence that NaCl affects LCST more than NaBr.
  • 2-salt GPR noise variance σ²_n = 6.7e-12
    Fitted white-noise term, effectively zero, so the GP interpolates replicate means rather than smoothing them.
  • 3-salt GPR composite kernel hyperparameters = σ²_lin≈1.35; σ²_RBF≈0.107, ℓ_RBF=[0.334,1.87,0.535]; σ²_Mat≈0.061, ℓ_Mat=[0.0139,100,100]; σ²_n=1e-10
    Fitted on seven initial points; the ℓ_Mat=0.0139 in the NaCl dimension indicates a near-delta Matern spike at training points, a memorization risk for the surrogate steering acquisition.
  • Target acceptance margin = not stated (implicitly ~0.1-0.3 °C)
    Text accepts 26.08 °C as 'within the acceptable margin' and 24.93 °C as 'within the error margin' without a predefined tolerance; the margin is inferred post hoc from replicate SDs, which affects what counts as 'success'.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption A zero-mean Gaussian Process with the chosen composite kernel is an adequate surrogate for LCST over the salt concentration space.
    Invoked in Eqs. (1)-(4). Load-bearing because EI-based selection in Eqs. (5)-(7) inherits the surrogate's posterior; the 2-salt model gets LOO CV (R²=0.941, SI Fig. S1) but the 3-salt model is never validated.
  • domain assumption The measured LCST is a stationary function of composition only: one uniform hydrogel stock, IR temperature readings true and drift-free, and replicate scatter is pure measurement noise.
    Underlies all rounds of Figs. 3-5; batch count/uniformity, IR calibration against a reference thermometer, and degradation over the campaign are not reported, so temporal drift would masquerade as model learning or 'self-correction'.
  • domain assumption LCST defined as 50% normalized transmittance, found by linear interpolation between adjacent temperature steps, is a faithful phase-transition proxy.
    Experimental section. The ramp rate, step size, and equilibration time are not given, so the exact transmittance curve is not reproducible from the text.
  • domain assumption The salt-LCST response is smooth, low-dimensional, and dominated by Hofmeister effects, navigable by GP-BO in 2-3 rounds.
    Introduction cites refs 34-36. The same near-linear behavior (ref. 34) means a linear additive model could plausibly match the BO efficiency, which is why the missing baseline matters.
  • standard math The target-seeking EI in Eqs. (5)-(7), with I(x) = -|y_pred(x) - y_target|, is a valid acquisition function.
    The negative-distance improvement with z = -|y_pred - y_target|/σ is self-consistent (exploitation via I, exploration via σ·φ), but nonstandard; no derivation or comparison to standard EI is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Self-Driving Laboratory Optimizes the Lower Critical Solution Temperature of Thermoresponsive Polymers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HBK7BVKE

@misc{pith2026250905351,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Self-Driving Laboratory Optimizes the Lower Critical Solution Temperature of Thermoresponsive Polymers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HBK7BVKE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05351}
}
read the original abstract

To overcome the inherent inefficiencies of traditional trial-and-error materials discovery, the scientific community is increasingly developing autonomous laboratories that integrate data-driven decision-making into closed-loop experimental workflows. In this work, we realize this concept for thermoresponsive polymers by developing a low-cost, "frugal twin" platform for the optimization of the lower critical solution temperature (LCST) of poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) (PNIPAM). Our system integrates robotic fluid-handling, on-line sensors, and Bayesian optimization (BO) that navigates the multi-component salt solution spaces to achieve user-specified LCST targets. The platform demonstrates convergence to target properties within a minimal number of experiments. It strategically explores the parameter space, learns from informative "off-target" results, and self-corrects to achieve the final targets. By providing an accessible and adaptable blueprint, this work lowers the barrier to entry for autonomous experimentation and accelerates the design and discovery of functional polymers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05351 by the authors.

Figure 4
Figure 4. Task 1, targeting an LCST of 25°C, demonstrated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Robotics in the laboratory .Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences, 25(3): 292–295, 1985

    Thomas L Isenhour. Robotics in the laboratory .Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences, 25(3): 292–295, 1985

    work page 1985

  2. [2]

    Re- search acceleration in self-driving labs: Technological roadmap toward accelerated materials and molecular discovery .Advanced Intelligent Systems, 5(4):2200331, 2023

    Fernando Delgado-Licona and Milad Abolhasani. Re- search acceleration in self-driving labs: Technological roadmap toward accelerated materials and molecular discovery .Advanced Intelligent Systems, 5(4):2200331, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Performance metrics to unleash the power of self-driving labs in chemistry and materials science

    Amanda A Volk and Milad Abolhasani. Performance metrics to unleash the power of self-driving labs in chemistry and materials science. Nature Communica- tions, 15(1):1378, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Next-generation experimentation with self- driving laboratories

    Florian Häse, Loïc M Roch, and Alán Aspuru- Guzik. Next-generation experimentation with self- driving laboratories. Trends in Chemistry , 1(3):282– 291, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Sustainable materials acceleration platform reveals stable and efficient wide-bandgap metal halide perovskite alloys

    Tonghui Wang, Ruipeng Li, Hossein Ardekani, Lucía Serrano-Luján, Jiantao Wang, Mahdi Ramezani, Ryan Wilmington, Mihirsinh Chauhan, Robert W Epps, Kasra Darabi, et al. Sustainable materials acceleration platform reveals stable and efficient wide-bandgap metal halide perovskite alloys. Matter, 6(9):2963– 2986, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Self-driving laboratories for chemistry and materials science

    Gary Tom, Stefan P Schmid, Sterling G Baird, Yang Cao, Kourosh Darvish, Han Hao, Stanley Lo, Sergio Pablo-García, Ella M Rajaonson, Marta Skreta, et al. Self-driving laboratories for chemistry and materials science. Chemical Reviews, 124(16):9633–9732, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    The robot scientist adam

    Ross D King, Jem Rowland, Wayne Aubrey , Maria Liakata, Magdalena Markham, Larisa N Soldatova, Ken E Whelan, Amanda Clare, Mike Young, Andrew Sparkes, et al. The robot scientist adam. Computer, 42 (8):46–54, 2009

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Controlling an or- ganic synthesis robot with machine learning to search for new reactivity .Nature, 559(7714):377–381, 2018

    Jarosław M Granda, Liva Donina, Vincenza Dragone, De-Liang Long, and Leroy Cronin. Controlling an or- ganic synthesis robot with machine learning to search for new reactivity .Nature, 559(7714):377–381, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    A mobile robotic chemist

    Benjamin Burger, Phillip M Maffettone, Vladimir V Gu- sev, Catherine M Aitchison, Yang Bai, Xiaoyan Wang, Xiaobo Li, Ben M Alston, Buyi Li, Rob Clowes, et al. A mobile robotic chemist. Nature, 583(7815):237–241, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

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

    Benjamin P MacLeod, Fraser GL Parlane, Thomas D Morrissey , Florian Häse, Loïc M Roch, Kevan E Det- telbach, Raphaell Moreira, Lars PE Yunker, Michael B Rooney , Joseph R Deeth, et al. Self-driving laboratory for accelerated discovery of thin-film materials. Sci- ence Advances...

    2020

  3. [11]

    Autonomous optimization of nonaqueous battery elec- trolytes via robotic experimentation and machine learning

    Adarsh Dave, Jared Mitchell, Sven Burke, Hongyi Lin, Jay Whitacre, and Venkatasubramanian Viswanathan. Autonomous optimization of nonaqueous battery elec- trolytes via robotic experimentation and machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.14786, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Increasing throughput in fused deposition modeling by modulating bed temperature

    Kelsey L Snapp, Aldair E Gongora, and Keith A Brown. Increasing throughput in fused deposition modeling by modulating bed temperature. Journal of Manufac- turing Science and Engineering, 143(9):094502, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Alphaflow: autonomous discovery and optimization of multi-step chemistry us- ing a self-driven fluidic lab guided by reinforcement learning

    Amanda A Volk, Robert W Epps, Daniel T Yonemoto, Benjamin S Masters, Felix N Castellano, Kristofer G Reyes, and Milad Abolhasani. Alphaflow: autonomous discovery and optimization of multi-step chemistry us- ing a self-driven fluidic lab guided by reinforcement learning. Nature...

    2023

  6. [14]

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

    Milad Abolhasani and Eugenia Kumacheva. The rise of self-driving labs in chemical and materials sciences. Nature Synthesis, 2(6):483–492, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Autonomous chemical experiments: Chal- lenges and perspectives on establishing a self-driving lab

    Martin Seifrid, Robert Pollice, Andres Aguilar-Granda, Zamyla Morgan Chan, Kazuhiro Hotta, Cher Tian Ser, Jenya Vestfrid, Tony C Wu, and Alan Aspuru- Guzik. Autonomous chemical experiments: Chal- lenges and perspectives on establishing a self-driving lab. Accounts of Chemical ...

    2022

  8. [16]

    Autonomous chemistry: Navigating self-driving labs in chemical and material sciences

    Oliver Bayley , Elia Savino, Aidan Slattery , and Timothy Noël. Autonomous chemistry: Navigating self-driving labs in chemical and material sciences. Matter, 7(7): 2382–2398, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Democratizing self-driving labs: Advances in low-cost 3d printing for laboratory au- tomation

    Sayan Doloi, Maloy Das, Matthew Osvaldo, Yujia Li, Zen Han Cho, Xingchi Xiao, John V Hanna, and 8 Leonard Ng Wei Tat. Democratizing self-driving labs: Advances in low-cost 3d printing for laboratory au- tomation. Digital Discovery, 2025

    2025

  10. [18]

    Pyopticon: An open-source python package for laboratory control, automation, and visualization

    Richard Randall and Arun Majumdar. Pyopticon: An open-source python package for laboratory control, automation, and visualization. Chemistry of Materials, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Ivoryos: an interoperable web interface for orchestrating python- based self-driving laboratories

    Wenyu Zhang, Lucy Hao, Veronica Lai, Ryan Corkery , Jacob Jessiman, Jiayu Zhang, Junliang Liu, Yusuke Sato, Maria Politi, Matthew E Reish, et al. Ivoryos: an interoperable web interface for orchestrating python- based self-driving laboratories. Nature Communica- tions, 16(1):1–8, 2025

    2025

  12. [20]

    Alabos: a python- based reconfigurable workflow management frame- work for autonomous laboratories

    Yuxing Fei, Bernardus Rendy , Rishi Kumar, Olympia Dartsi, Hrushikesh P Sahasrabuddhe, Matthew J Mc- Dermott, Zheren Wang, Nathan J Szymanski, Lau- ren N Walters, David Milsted, et al. Alabos: a python- based reconfigurable workflow management frame- work for autonomous labora...

    2024

  13. [21]

    Orchestrating nimble experiments across interconnected labs

    Dan Guevarra, Kevin Kan, Yungchieh Lai, Ryan JR Jones, Lan Zhou, Phillip Donnelly , Matthias Richter, Helge S Stein, and John M Gregoire. Orchestrating nimble experiments across interconnected labs. Digi- tal Discovery, 2(6):1806–1812, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Chemos: orchestrat- ing autonomous experimentation

    Loïc M Roch, Florian Häse, Christoph Kreisbeck, Teresa Tamayo-Mendoza, Lars PE Yunker, Jason E Hein, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik. Chemos: orchestrat- ing autonomous experimentation. Science Robotics, 3 (19):eaat5559, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Chemos 2.0: An orchestration architecture for chemical self- driving laboratories

    Malcolm Sim, Mohammad Ghazi Vakili, Felix Strieth- Kalthoff, Han Hao, Riley J Hickman, Santiago Miret, Sergio Pablo-García, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik. Chemos 2.0: An orchestration architecture for chemical self- driving laboratories. Matter, 7(9):2959–2977, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Autonomous mate- rials synthesis by machine learning and robotics

    Ryota Shimizu, Shigeru Kobayashi, Yuki Watanabe, Ya- sunobu Ando, and Taro Hitosugi. Autonomous mate- rials synthesis by machine learning and robotics. APL Materials, 8(11), 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    frugal twin

    Stanley Lo, Sterling G Baird, Joshua Schrier, Ben Blaiszik, Nessa Carson, Ian Foster, Andrés Aguilar- Granda, Sergei V Kalinin, Benji Maruyama, Maria Politi, et al. Review of low-cost self-driving labora- tories in chemistry and materials science: the “frugal twin” concept. Di...

    2024

  18. [26]

    Archerfish: a retrofitted 3d printer for high-throughput combinato- rial experimentation via continuous printing

    Alexander E Siemenn, Basita Das, Eunice Aissi, Fang Sheng, Lleyton Elliott, Blake Hudspeth, Marilyn Mey- ers, James Serdy , and Tonio Buonassisi. Archerfish: a retrofitted 3d printer for high-throughput combinato- rial experimentation via continuous printing. Digital Discovery, 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    Poly (n-isopropylacrylamide) phase diagrams: fifty years of research

    Avraham Halperin, Martin Kröger, and Françoise M Winnik. Poly (n-isopropylacrylamide) phase diagrams: fifty years of research. Angewandte Chemie Interna- tional Edition, 54(51):15342–15367, 2015

    2015

  20. [28]

    Poly (n- isopropylacrylamide) hydrogels for storage and de- livery of reagents to paper-based analytical devices

    Haydn T Mitchell, Spencer A Schultz, Philip J Costanzo, and Andres W Martinez. Poly (n- isopropylacrylamide) hydrogels for storage and de- livery of reagents to paper-based analytical devices. Chromatography, 2(3):436–451, 2015

    2015

  21. [29]

    A recharge- able drug delivery system based on pnipam hydrogel for the local release of curcumin

    Zahra Ayar, Mehdi Shafieian, Narges Mahmoodi, Omid Sabzevari, and Zahra Hassannejad. A recharge- able drug delivery system based on pnipam hydrogel for the local release of curcumin. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 138(40):51167, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Snapshot of phase transition in thermore- sponsive hydrogel pnipam: Role in drug delivery and tissue engineering

    Sajjad Ashraf, Hun-Kuk Park, Hansoo Park, and Soo- Hong Lee. Snapshot of phase transition in thermore- sponsive hydrogel pnipam: Role in drug delivery and tissue engineering. Macromolecular Research, 24:297– 304, 2016

    2016

  23. [31]

    Investigation of 3d-printed pnipam-based constructs for tissue en- gineering applications: a review

    Kun Wu, Yanan Hu, and Huiping Feng. Investigation of 3d-printed pnipam-based constructs for tissue en- gineering applications: a review. Journal of Materials Science, 58(47):17727–17750, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Poly (n-isopropylacrylamide) and its copolymers: a review on recent advances in the areas of sensing and biosensing

    Anubhab Das, Anashwara Babu, Sourav Chakraborty , Joachim FR Van Guyse, Richard Hoogenboom, and Samarendra Maji. Poly (n-isopropylacrylamide) and its copolymers: a review on recent advances in the areas of sensing and biosensing. Advanced Functional Materials, 34(37):2402432, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Poly (n-isopropylacrylamide) microgel-based optical devices for sensing and biosensing

    Molla R Islam, Andrews Ahiabu, Xue Li, and Michael J Serpe. Poly (n-isopropylacrylamide) microgel-based optical devices for sensing and biosensing. Sensors, 14(5):8984–8995, 2014

    2014

  26. [34]

    Effects of salt on the lower critical solution tem- perature of poly (n-isopropylacrylamide)

    Hongbo Du, Ranil Wickramasinghe, and Xianghong Qian. Effects of salt on the lower critical solution tem- perature of poly (n-isopropylacrylamide). The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 114(49):16594–16604, 2010

    2010

  27. [35]

    Salt effects on poly (n- isopropylacrylamide) phase transition thermodynam- ics from nmr spectroscopy

    Christopher M Burba, Shawn M Carter, Kevin J Meyer, and Charles V Rice. Salt effects on poly (n- isopropylacrylamide) phase transition thermodynam- ics from nmr spectroscopy . The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 112(34):10399–10404, 2008

    2008

  28. [36]

    Cation effects on the phase transition of n-isopropylacrylamide hydro- gels

    Kevin J Pastoor and Charles V Rice. Cation effects on the phase transition of n-isopropylacrylamide hydro- gels. Macromolecular chemistry and physics , 216(9): 1024–1032, 2015

    2015

  29. [37]

    Bayesian opti- mization for chemical products and functional mate- rials

    Ke Wang and Alexander W Dowling. Bayesian opti- mization for chemical products and functional mate- rials. Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering , 36: 100728, 2022. 9

    2022

  30. [38]

    Machine learning-assisted 3d printing of thermoelectric materials of ultrahigh performances at room temperature

    Kaidong Song, Guoyue Xu, Ali Newaz Mohammad Tanvir, Ke Wang, Md Omarsany Bappy , Haijian Yang, Wenjie Shang, Le Zhou, Alexander W Dowling, Tengei Luo, et al. Machine learning-assisted 3d printing of thermoelectric materials of ultrahigh performances at room temperature. Journa...

    2024

  31. [39]

    Machine learning-assisted ultrafast flash sin- tering of high-performance and flexible silver–selenide thermoelectric devices

    Mortaza Saeidi-Javash, Ke Wang, Minxiang Zeng, Tengfei Luo, Alexander W Dowling, and Yanliang Zhang. Machine learning-assisted ultrafast flash sin- tering of high-performance and flexible silver–selenide thermoelectric devices. Energy & Environmental Sci- ence, 15(12):5093–5104, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    When physics-informed data analytics outper- forms black-box machine learning: A case study in thickness control for additive manufacturing

    Ke Wang, Minxiang Zeng, Jialu Wang, Wenjie Shang, Yanliang Zhang, Tengfei Luo, and Alexander W Dowl- ing. When physics-informed data analytics outper- forms black-box machine learning: A case study in thickness control for additive manufacturing. Digital Chemical Engineering, ...

    2023

  33. [41]

    Bayesian optimization of low-temperature nonthermal plasma jet sintering of nanoinks

    Zhongyu Cheng, Ke Wang, Ali MN Tanvir, Wenjie Shang, Tengfei Luo, Yanliang Zhang, Alexander W Dowling, and David B Go. Bayesian optimization of low-temperature nonthermal plasma jet sintering of nanoinks. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, 16(35): 46897–46908, 2024. 10

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.