Recent development in Artificial Intelligence (AI) models has propelled their application in scientific discovery, but the validation and exploration of these discoveries require subsequent empirical experimentation. The concept of self-driving laboratories promises to automate and thus boost the experimental process following AI-driven discoveries. However, the transition of experimental protocols, originally crafted for human comprehension, into formats interpretable by machines presents significant challenges, which, within the context of specific expert domain, encompass the necessity for structured as opposed to natural language, the imperative for explicit rather than tacit knowledge, and the preservation of causality and consistency throughout protocol steps. Presently, the task of protocol translation predominantly requires the manual and labor-intensive involvement of domain experts and information technology specialists, rendering the process time-intensive. To address these issues, we propose a framework that automates the protocol translation process through a three-stage workflow, which incremen-tally constructs Protocol Dependence Graphs (PDGs) that approach structured on the syntax level, completed on the semantics level, and linked on the execution level. Quantitative and qualitative evaluations have demonstrated its performance at par with that of human experts, underscoring its potential to significantly expedite and democratize the process of scientific discovery by elevating the automation capabilities within self-driving laboratories.

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

The dataset provides synchronized labels as ground truth data, spanning 20 unique activities. Of thetime spent performing activities, 64.9% ofthedatahasground-truth labels entered inrealtime during the experiment.

Despite extensive theoretical work on biologically plausible learning rules, clear evidence about whether and how such rules are implemented in the brain has been difficult to obtain. We consider biologically plausible supervised-and reinforcement-learning rules and ask whether changes in network activity during learning can be used to determine which learning rule is being used. Supervised learning requires a credit-assignment model estimating the mapping from neural activity to behavior, and, in a biological organism, this model will inevitably be an imperfect approximation of the ideal mapping, leading to a bias in the direction of the weight updates relative to the true gradient. Reinforcement learning, on the other hand, requires no credit-assignment model and tends to make weight updates following the true gradient direction. We derive a metric to distinguish between learning rules by observing changes in the network activity during learning, given that the mapping from brain to behavior is known by the experimenter. Because brain-machine interface (BMI) experiments allow for precise knowledge of this mapping, we model a cursor-control BMI task using recurrent neural networks, showing that learning rules can be distinguished in simulated experiments using only observations that a neuroscience experimenter would plausibly have access to.