探索全球前沿学术脉络

TxBench-PP: Analyzing AI Agent Performance on Small-Molecule Preclinical Pharmacology

arXiv:2606.19245v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) agents promise to accelerate drug discovery by compressing interpretation and decision-making loops, but practical deployment requires trusted evaluation on realistic program decisions. We introduce TherapeuticsBench Preclinical Pharmacology (TxBench-PP), a verifiable benchmark for small-molecule preclinical pharmacology and the first focused slice of a broader TherapeuticsBench effort across drug-discovery stages and therapeutic modalities. TxBench-PP tests whether agents can recover accurate conclusions from real-world assay data rather than memorized facts from literature. The benchmark contains 100 evaluations indexed by program stage, assay type, and task structure, spanning mechanism-of-action (MoA) and pharmacodynamic (PD) reasoning, compound-target engagement, causal target validation, developability and safety, and translational efficacy. Agents receive realistic workflow snapshots, inspect files in a coding environment, and return structured answers graded deterministically. Across 16 model-harness configurations, comprising 11 models and 4,800 trajectories, no system reliably recovered preclinical pharmacology decisions. The strongest configuration, Claude Opus 4.8 / Pi, passed 59.3\% of endpoint attempts (178/300; 95\% CI, 51.1-67.6), followed by GPT-5.5 / Pi at 55.3\% (166/300; 47.0-63.6).

EpiBench: Verifiable Evaluation of AI Agents on Epigenomics Analysis

arXiv:2606.13602v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We introduce EpiBench, a verifiable benchmark for short-horizon epigenomics analysis. EpiBench evaluates whether agents can make well-defined analysis decisions from realistic workflow states and return deterministically gradable answers. The benchmark includes 106 evaluations across CUT\&Tag/CUT\&RUN, ATAC-seq, ChIP-seq, and DNA methylation workflows. Across 5,088 valid trajectories from 16 model-harness pairs, no system passed a majority of attempts: GPT-5.5 / Pi led at 45.0\% (143/318 attempts; 95\% confidence interval (CI), 36.3–53.7), followed by GPT-5.5 / OpenAI Codex at 39.9\% (127/318 attempts; 95\% CI, 31.6–48.3). Claude Opus 4.8 Max / Pi and GPT-5.4 / Pi each passed 39.0\% (124/318 attempts; 95\% CI, 30.2–47.8 and 31.0–47.0, respectively). Performance varies across assay types, and many failed runs still contain parts of the correct answer. Agents often found the right files and computed useful intermediate results, but failed when the task required deeper, assay-specific scientific judgment.