Talking to instruments: device-integration standards for self-driving laboratories
40 affiliations
- 1Acceleration Consortium, 700 University Ave, Toronto, Canada, M7A 2S4
- 2UniteLabs GmbH
- 3School of Computer Science
- 4Carnegie Mellon University
- 5Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, 144 College St, Toronto, Canada, M5S 3M2
- 6Department of Mechanical Engineering
- 7Boston University
- 8Division of Materials Science & Engineering
- 9Physics Department
- 10Department of Energy Conversion and Storage
- 11Technical University of Denmark
- 12Institute of Pharmaceutical Science, King’s College London, 150 Stamford Street, UK, SE1 9NH
- 13AMOLF, Science Park 104, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1098
- 14Merck KGaA, Frankfurter Str. 250, Darmstadt, Germany, 64293
- 15Data Science and Learning Division, Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 S. Cass Avenue, Lemont, IL, USA, 60439-4837
- 16Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 7000 East Avenue, Livermore, CA, USA, 94550
- 17Department of Chemistry, Seoul National University, 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul, Korea, 08826
- 18Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing (BAM, Richard-Willstaetter-Str. 11, Berlin, Germany, 12489
- 19RheinMain University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Unter den Eichen 5, Wiesbaden, Germany, 65195
- 20School of Materials Science and Engineering (MSE
- 21Nanyang Technological University (NTU
- 22Department of Materials Science and Engineering
- 23University of Tennessee
- 24Air Force Research Laboratory
- 25DCS Corp, 4027 Colonel Glenn Hwy., Suite. 210, Dayton, OH, USA, 45431
- 26School of Chemistry, University of Glasgow, University Avenue, Glasgow, UK, G12 8QQ
- 27Swiss Cat+ West Hub
- 28Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL
- 29Iowa State University
- 30Van’t Hoff Institute for Molecular Sciences (HIMS, University of Amsterdam (UvA, Science Park 904, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1098 XH
- 31Berkeley Education Alliance for Research in Singapore (BEARS
- 32Cradle
- 33Center for the Transformation of Chemistry (CTC, Puschstraße 6b, Leipzig, Germany, 04103
- 34Laboratory of Chemical Artificial Intelligence
- 35National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) Catalysis, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL
- 36National Institute of Advanced Science and Technology (AIST
- 37Process Chemistry & Catalysis
- 38Hoffmann-La Roche AG
- 39National Research Council, 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC, USA, 20001
- 40Center for Basic Research on Materials, National Institute for Materials Science (NIMS, 1-2-1 Sengen, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan, 305-0047
Abstract
Self-driving laboratories (SDLs) are rapidly outgrowing the single-instrument prototype, scaling into multi-instrument and multi-site platforms that run autonomous discovery across chemistry, materials science, biotechnology, pharmaceutical re-search and adjacent domains. What now decides whether an SDL can scale, share its integrations and federate experiments is no longer the algorithms or the robots, but the software layer that orchestrates heterogeneous devices. Today that layer is the bottleneck: a fast-growing ecosystem of open-source orchestrators in which most have built device integration on their own bespoke conventions instead of adopting a formally governed standard. The result is predictable and costly. Integrations do not transfer between laboratories, orchestrators cannot interoperate and many new SDLs rebuild their device-control layer from scratch. Crucially, this is an engineering coordination problem, not a fundamental scientific one and therefore among the most tractable bottlenecks in autonomous science. We map the device-integration standards landscape onto the open-source orchestrator ecosystem, compare the leading options and give scenario-driven guidance on when to use each. We then translate the requirements of autonomous operation into a concrete deliverable: a set of testable engineering criteria and a weighted procurement scorecard that defines an autonomous-ready control interface and gives institutional buyers the leverage to demand it; these requirements do not change as orchestration turns agentic: whether an instrument is driven by a program or by a language-model agent through a model-facing protocol, it is only as safe and reliable as the interface it exposes. Adopted at scale, these requirements turn device integration from a burden repaid lab by lab into shared infrastructure,
Related
- What Can the Records of Published Self-Driving Laboratories Predict About a New Platform? A Step-Level Database and Explorer
- Lookahead Bayesian Optimisation for Molecular Growth in Self-Driving Laboratories
- Autonomous Robotic Workflow for Solution-Based Synthesis and High-Temperature Thermal Processing toward Self-Driving Laboratories
- La Agente Óptima: Towards Agentic Self-Driving Laboratories
- Integrating Generative AI and Data Science into General Chemistry Laboratories
BibTeX
@misc{gottstein2026talking,
title = {{Talking to instruments: device-integration standards for self-driving laboratories}},
author = {Willi Gottstein and Lukas Bromig and Matthias Arnold and Sina Barazandeh and Joseph S Brown and Keith A. Brown and Ivano E. Castelli and Patrick Courtney and Basita Das and Martin Fitzner and Tobias Ginsburg and Aldair E. Gongora and Sang Soo Han and Annica Heyne and Georg Hinkel and Kedar Hippalgaonkar and Sergei V. Kalinin and Nicholas Kleiner and Christian Knittl-Frank and Jose Lugo-Martinez and Benji Maruyama and Pascal Miéville and Ankush Kumar Mishra and Timothy Noël and Ozlem Ozcan and Noah Paulson and Ilja Porohovoj and Mark Z. Porter and Zekun Ren and Harmen M. van Rossum and Bastian Ruehle and Samuel Vitor Saraiva and Elia Savino and Philippe Schwaller and Woosuck Shin and Joshua W. Sin and Eric T. Sletten and Arthur Sloan and Tomasz M. Stawski and Casey Stone and Ryo Tamura and Dean Thomas and Tejs Vegge and Robert Waelder and Ilya Yakavets and Hyuk Jun Yoo and Naruki Yoshikawa and Sergio Pablo-García},
howpublished = {ChemRxiv},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.26434/chemrxiv.15009990/v1},
url = {https://chemrxiv.org/doi/full/10.26434/chemrxiv.15009990/v1},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Talking to instruments: device-integration standards for self-driving laboratories
AU - Willi Gottstein
AU - Lukas Bromig
AU - Matthias Arnold
AU - Sina Barazandeh
AU - Joseph S Brown
AU - Keith A. Brown
AU - Ivano E. Castelli
AU - Patrick Courtney
AU - Basita Das
AU - Martin Fitzner
AU - Tobias Ginsburg
AU - Aldair E. Gongora
AU - Sang Soo Han
AU - Annica Heyne
AU - Georg Hinkel
AU - Kedar Hippalgaonkar
AU - Sergei V. Kalinin
AU - Nicholas Kleiner
AU - Christian Knittl-Frank
AU - Jose Lugo-Martinez
AU - Benji Maruyama
AU - Pascal Miéville
AU - Ankush Kumar Mishra
AU - Timothy Noël
AU - Ozlem Ozcan
AU - Noah Paulson
AU - Ilja Porohovoj
AU - Mark Z. Porter
AU - Zekun Ren
AU - Harmen M. van Rossum
AU - Bastian Ruehle
AU - Samuel Vitor Saraiva
AU - Elia Savino
AU - Philippe Schwaller
AU - Woosuck Shin
AU - Joshua W. Sin
AU - Eric T. Sletten
AU - Arthur Sloan
AU - Tomasz M. Stawski
AU - Casey Stone
AU - Ryo Tamura
AU - Dean Thomas
AU - Tejs Vegge
AU - Robert Waelder
AU - Ilya Yakavets
AU - Hyuk Jun Yoo
AU - Naruki Yoshikawa
AU - Sergio Pablo-García
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/06
PB - ChemRxiv
DO - 10.26434/chemrxiv.15009990/v1
UR - https://chemrxiv.org/doi/full/10.26434/chemrxiv.15009990/v1
AB - Self-driving laboratories (SDLs) are rapidly outgrowing the single-instrument prototype, scaling into multi-instrument and multi-site platforms that run autonomous discovery across chemistry, materials science, biotechnology, pharmaceutical re-search and adjacent domains. What now decides whether an SDL can scale, share its integrations and federate experiments is no longer the algorithms or the robots, but the software layer that orchestrates heterogeneous devices. Today that layer is the bottleneck: a fast-growing ecosystem of open-source orchestrators in which most have built device integration on their own bespoke conventions instead of adopting a formally governed standard. The result is predictable and costly. Integrations do not transfer between laboratories, orchestrators cannot interoperate and many new SDLs rebuild their device-control layer from scratch. Crucially, this is an engineering coordination problem, not a fundamental scientific one and therefore among the most tractable bottlenecks in autonomous science. We map the device-integration standards landscape onto the open-source orchestrator ecosystem, compare the leading options and give scenario-driven guidance on when to use each. We then translate the requirements of autonomous operation into a concrete deliverable: a set of testable engineering criteria and a weighted procurement scorecard that defines an autonomous-ready control interface and gives institutional buyers the leverage to demand it; these requirements do not change as orchestration turns agentic: whether an instrument is driven by a program or by a language-model agent through a model-facing protocol, it is only as safe and reliable as the interface it exposes. Adopted at scale, these requirements turn device integration from a burden repaid lab by lab into shared infrastructure,
ER -