arXiv preprint ·
When Can a Learned Design Surrogate Be Trusted in a Self-Driving Microfluidics Laboratory? An Offline Closed-Loop Framework Built and Tested on Six Public Tables
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Self-driving laboratories couple a learned design surrogate to an instrument, and on every new target domain it must answer four questions: when it can be trusted, how many target measurements it needs, which to make first, and when to stop adapting, switch models or escalate. We state a framework making each measurable (a competence ratio, a budget $k^*(\varepsilon)$, a time-to-target and a priced decision) and instantiate it without wet experiments on six public droplet-microfluidic and liposome tables as offline laboratories: 107 leave-one-group tiers whose rows are hidden labels. A sealed, pre-registered programme (two sealed negative validations and a pre-registered test on three more tables) and seven frozen closed-loop protocols, each run twice, yield 23 findings. Shift cost is stratified by shift type; no label-free statistic certifies individual candidates; random-split model-family rankings predicted neither the sealed nor the loop rankings. Warm-start residual boosting returns a surrogate to $1.25\times$ its development reference within 20 target rows in 94% of chemistry tiers (27% under a strict noise-floor reading), 90% of laboratory and 40% of device tiers, and a budget planned from the shift type on other tables is not measurably worse on a new one. In the loop, one gain survives drift and shuffled-label controls on all tiers, carried by the sparsely sampled ones: proposing at once and warm-starting on every measurement reaches a 10% target in 2.80 measurements against 3.31 for the reference, and in 5.72 against 11.35 for random proposals on 301 hard units at a 3% tolerance. No label-free acquisition rule survives the shuffled-label control, no interval-aware proposal or other model family does better, and no threshold rule on the tested diagnostics beats always continuing once escalation is priced. No wet-lab validation is claimed.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Machine Learning
Dream to Assist: Intent-Conditioned World Models for Shared Vehicle Control
Repulsive Population Policy Gradients for Behaviorally Diverse Reinforcement Learning
AdaTutor: Adaptive Tutoring through Pedagogical Strategy Selection
Property-Based Testing for Robust Softmax and Cross-Entropy
Video World Models Need Predictable Latents
Get the few papers worth your time in Machine Learning every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.