Engineering Reliable Autonomous Systems: Challenges and Solutions

One year ago, the AISLE roadmap argued that autonomous laboratories operated as isolated islands and proposed a grassroots network organized around five critical dimensions. The field has since moved faster than anticipated. Multi-agent systems have produced experimentally validated hypotheses, self-driving laboratories have grown more interoperable and orchestrated, reasoning-trained and domain foundation models have raised the capability ceiling, and the Genesis Mission has placed autonomous experimentation at the center of U.S. federal science strategy, with industry emerging as a primary actor. Progress has met a sobering counter-current, including a corrected flagship discovery result, benchmarks showing that agents which rival experts on closed-ended questions still complete only a fraction of open-ended research, and fabricated citations surfacing at leading venues. We read this as the defining tension of the field. Producing a candidate discovery is no longer the hard part, but verifying it is, and this asymmetry now limits autonomous science more than raw model capability. We update the roadmap around seven dimensions, revisiting the original five and elevating two former cross-cutting concerns, trust, verification, and reproducibility, and safety, security, and governance, to first-class status. We assess the original milestones (M1 through M14) as achieved, partially achieved, reframed, or open, add four new milestones (M15 through M18), and scope the path forward to a two-year horizon. The first year concentrates on interfaces, protocol adoption, and the scaffolding of verification, and the second targets federation, zero-trust coordination, and governance. Throughout, we position the grassroots network as the interoperability fabric that lets national programs, international initiatives, and commercial platforms connect rather than re-silo.

Embodied AI systems are increasingly deployed in open-world environments, yet ensuring their reliability remains a fundamental challenge. Drawing on discussions from the AAAI'26 Bridge Program on "Making Embodied AI Reliable with Testing and Formal Verification", this article argues that reliability in embodied AI is inherently a lifecycle assurance problem arising from uncertainty, human interaction, and emergent behaviors across tightly coupled system components. We identify three complementary directions toward reliable embodied AI: (1) trustworthy scenario-based testing supported by validated specifications and meaningful coverage metrics, (2) compositional verification enabled by structured symbolic representations of system behavior and environmental context, and (3) runtime assurance mechanisms capable of adapting to uncertainty and distribution shifts during deployment. Rather than treating these approaches independently, we advocate integrated assurance workflows that connect testing, verification, and runtime adaptation through shared neuro-symbolic representations and continuous feedback across the system lifecycle. Such integration provides a foundation for building trustworthy embodied AI systems that can operate safely and reliably in complex real-world environments.

Agentic artificial intelligence systems, capable of autonomous perception, planning, tool use, and multi-step action, are increasingly proposed for critical engineering domains where decisions carry physical, operational, or economic consequences. This survey addresses a gap in current literature by treating trustworthiness, whether agentic behavior can be verified, audited, and trusted under the constraints that engineering practice actually requires, as a first-class engineering property, rather than evaluating agentic AI by task capability alone. The study adopts a trustworthiness model organized around five cross-cutting dimensions: safety and constraint satisfaction; robustness and reliability; transparency and interpretability; accountability and auditability; and privacy and security. This is mapped onto an agentic assurance workflow spanning perception through audit. Building on this foundation, agentic systems architectures, threats, concrete trust mechanisms, and quantitative metrics are surveyed for direct application in agentic systems development and evaluation. These principles are then examined across four constraint-bound engineering domains: power systems, autonomous vehicles/robotics/UAVs, high-performance computing, and communication networks, identifying recurring design patterns, shared failure modes, and domain-specific gaps. Synthesizing across those domains, agentic AI trustworthiness is shown to be a single problem, with a path outlined toward a reusable, cross-domain assurance framework analogous to the graded certification regimes used by mature safety-critical engineering fields.