🤖 AI Summary
This study evaluates the reliability and adaptability of large language models in executing scientific tasks within real-world physical environments, with a focus on their ability to generate executable experimental protocols and iteratively refine them based on empirical evidence. Leveraging a robotic chemistry laboratory comprising 45 modular workstations and conducting 4,608 trials, this work extends scientific agent evaluation beyond pure reasoning to encompass physical executability and evidence-driven closed-loop adaptation, introducing a quantifiable framework for assessing deployment readiness. Results reveal that only 3.3% of generated protocols were deemed executable by expert reviewers, with the best-performing system achieving a success rate of 28.1%. Most generated workflows contained no more than 30 steps and generally lacked capabilities for workflow-level replanning or methodological reconfiguration in response to experimental outcomes.
📝 Abstract
AI is evaluated through knowledge, reasoning and plan generation, yet scientific agency requires reliable physical action and adaptation to evidence. Here, we use a robotic chemistry laboratory as a physical-world testbed to make scientific agency measurable. Its 45 modular workstations exposed as machine-readable skills enabled 4,608 trials. Only 3.3% of trials produced expert-assessed executable workflows under laboratory constraints; even the best system achieved 28.1%. Long-horizon planning remained a challenge: only three executable workflows exceeded 30 operations, although the longest contained 44. Across five rounds, experimental feedback prompted local adjustments but no workflow-level replanning or analytical-method redesign. By making physical executability and evidence-driven replanning measurable, our study provides an evidence-based assessment of deployment readiness and a diagnostic framework to guide closed-loop improvements towards physically grounded autonomous research.