Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted as conversational assistants in genomics, where they are mainly used to reason over biological knowledge, annotations, and analysis outputs through natural language interfaces. However, existing benchmarks either focus on specialized DNA models trained for sequence prediction or evaluate biological knowledge using text-only questions, leaving the behavior of general-purpose LLMs when directly exposed to raw genome sequences underexplored. We introduce GenomeQA, a benchmark designed to provide a controlled evaluation setting for general-purpose LLMs on sequence-based genome inference tasks. GenomeQA comprises 5,200 samples drawn from multiple biological databases, with sequence lengths ranging from 6 to 1,000 base pairs (bp), spanning six task families: Enhancer and Promoter Identification, Splice Site Identification, Taxonomic Classification, Histone Mark Prediction, Transcription Factor Binding Site Prediction, and TF Motif Prediction. Across six frontier LLMs, we find that models consistently outperform random baselines and can exploit local sequence signals such as GC content and short motifs, while performance degrades on tasks that require more indirect or multi-step inference over sequence patterns. GenomeQA establishes a diagnostic benchmark for studying and improving the use of general-purpose LLMs on raw genomic sequences.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of GenomeQA. The pipeline consists of Data collection, processing, construction and LLM evaluation.
Task
Source
Seq. Len
Label
BCQ
MCQ
Counts
Avg. Len
Counts
Avg. Len
Enhancer and Promoter Identification
EPDnew,SCREEN
400
2
500
176
500
70
Splice Site Identification
NT downstream tasks
600
3
500
254
500
94
Taxonomic Classification
NCBI RefSeq
1000
3
500
402
500
146
Histone Mark Prediction
NT downstream tasks
1000
10
500
419
500
176
TFBS Prediction
ENCODE, JASPAR
100
20
500
61
500
31
Table 1: The statistics of GenomeQA suite, where Source indicates the data source, Seq. Len refs to the length of DNA sequence, and Label denotes the number of label sets. Avg. Len represents the average lengths of the questions. We report the number of tokens after tokenization using the Llama-4 tokenizer.
Figure 2: Distribution of Options in BCQ (a) and MCQ (b) of GenomeQA.
Model
Thinking
Enhancer and Promoter Identification
Splice Site Identification
Taxonomic Classification
Histone Mark Prediction
TFBS Prediction
TF Motif Prediction
Avg.
BCQ
Claude-Sonnet-4.5
✔
69.00
53.20
61.60
53.80
56.60
64.00
59.70
GPT-5.1
✔
70.60
54.40
64.60
53.20
55.80
66.00
60.77
Gemini-3-Pro
✔
67.80
50.00
78.80
57.20
59.80
84.00
66.27
Grok-4.1
✔
67.60
47.60
63.80
53.20
54.60
69.00
59.30
Llama-4
✘
55.40
50.00
57.00
52.60
51.60
73.00
56.60
Table 2: Overall results of LLMs on GenomeQA. Thinking denotes whether the model utilizes Chain-of-Thought reasoning. The table reports the classification accuracy (%) for each subtask and Avg. denotes the average accuracy. The best performance in each task is bolded.
Figure 3: Performance comparison of LLMs across six tasks. The scores represent the macro-average accuracy (%) derived from both BCQ and MCQ. The numerical annotations indicate the highest accuracy achieved for each task (dominated by Gemini-3-Pro).
model
Thinking
BCQ
MCQ
GPT-5.1
✔
60.77
52.30
✘
58.03
43.97
Qwen3-Max
✔
56.53
45.33
✘
54.57
40.80
Table 3: Performance comparison of LLMs with and without the thinking process on GenomeQA. The table reports the accuracy percentages on BCQ and MCQ.
Model
BCQ
MCQ
w/
w/o
w/
w/o
Claude-Sonnet-4.5
68.07
54.22
63.86
27.11
GPT-5.1
68.07
52.41
63.86
27.11
Gemini-3-Pro
74.70
60.24
67.47
44.58
Grok-4.1
61.45
54.82
58.43
27.11
Llama-4
58.43
50.00
37.95
24.10
Table 4: Impact of implicit target inference on TFBS prediction task. The table reports accuracy percentages where w/ denotes the target (CTCF) is explicitly named, allowing direct pattern recognition and w/o denotes the implied target setting.
Figure 4: Distribution of failed cases.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Type
Examples
Note
BCQ
Does the Human DNA sequence {seq} contain any {target}?
{seq} represents a sequence, {target} is the query label
Does this Human DNA sequence contain authentic {target}? Sequence: {seq}
Specially used in Splice-Site Prediction
Consider the chromatin state in K562 cells. Is this Human DNA sequence located in an {state} region? Sequence: {seq}
Specially used in Histone Mark Prediction
We are looking for a sequence bound by the master regulator of chromatin looping and insulation. Is this sequence a match? {seq}
Specially used in TFBS prediction
MCQ
Which of the following Human DNA sequences contains a {target}?
{target} is the query label
There is an exception in this group. While three sequences contain {target1}, one actually harbors a {target2}. Can you find it?
{target1} and {target2} represent query labels
Appendix
Table 5: Question Templates in GenomeQA.
Figure 5: Label statistics for all tasks. The charts display the distribution of question types for BCQ and MCQ. (a)-(b): Enhancer and Promoter Identification. (c)-(d): Splice Site Identification. (e)-(f): Taxonomic Classification. (g)-(h): Histone Mark Prediction. (i)-(j): TFBS Prediction. (k)-(l): TF Motif Prediction.
Taxonomy
Species
NCBI Accession
Eukaryote
Home sapiens
GCF_000001405.40
Mus musculus
GCF_000001635.27
Sus scrofa
GCF_000003025.6
Prokaryote
Escherichia coli
GCF_000005845.2
Staphylococcus aureus
GCF_000013425.1
Bacillus subtilis
GCF_000009045.1
Appendix
Table 6: Species in Taxonomic Classification task.
Chrom. State
Selected Histone Marks
Open
H3K4me3, H3K9ac, H3K27ac
Close
H3K9me3, H3K27me3
Undefined
H3K27me3, H2AFZ, H3K4me1
H3K4me2, H3K36me3, H4K20me1
Appendix
Table 7: Histone marks in the Histone Mark Prediction task. Chrom. State indicates the chromatin state.
3D Genome
Selected TFs
Related
CTCF
Unrelated
SP1, GABPA, E2F1, TEAD4, NRF1
Undefined
REST, EGR1, YY1, ZBTB33, FOXA1, JUN, MAX
SRF, MEF2A, RELA, STAT1, NR3C1, POU5F1, GATA2
Appendix
Table 8: TFs in TFBS Prediction.
Figure 6: Motifs in TFBS Prediction.
Figure 7: The Base Prompt used as a baseline. It contains only basic task descriptions and formatting instructions without domain-specific reasoning guidance.
Figure 8: The Optimized Prompt designed for the LLM. It includes explicit role definition, domain constraints, a step-by-step reasoning protocol, and strict output formatting rules.
Model
BCQ (33 samples)
Enhancer and Promoter Identification
Splice Site Identification
Taxonomic Classification
Histone Mark Prediction
TFBS Prediction
TF Motif Prediction
Avg.
No. Task Wins
Base
Opt.
Base
Opt.
Base
Opt.
Base
Opt.
Base
Opt.
Base
Opt.
Base
Opt.
Claude-Sonnet-4.5
100.00
66.67
44.44
22.22
33.33
100.00
33.33
50.00
66.67
55.56
66.67
66.67
57.41
60.19
3
GPT-5.1
100.00
100.00
88.89
44.44
100.00
66.67
66.67
66.67
55.56
66.67
33.33
100.00
74.07
74.07
4
Gemini3-Pro
66.67
100.00
44.44
55.56
100.00
100.00
50.00
33.33
77.78
77.78
100.00
100.00
73.15
77.78
5
Grok-4.1
100.00
100.00
33.33
66.67
66.67
66.67
33.33
50.00
66.67
66.67
33.33
66.67
55.56
69.44
6
Appendix
Table 9: Ablation study on Binary Choice Questions. Performance comparison between the initial and refined prompts on the 33-sample BCQ development set. Base denotes the Base System Prompt and Opt. denotes the Optimized System Prompt. Avg. represents the average accuracy across all six tasks. No. Task Wins indicates the number of tasks where the optimized prompt achieved equal or higher accuracy than the base prompt. Bold values highlight instances where the optimized prompt resulted in improved or equivalent performance compared to the baseline.
Model
MCQ (57 samples)
Enhancer and Promoter Identification
Splice Site Identification
Taxonomic Classification
Histone Mark Prediction
TFBS Prediction
TF Motif Prediction
Avg.
No. Task Wins
Base
Opt.
Base
Opt.
Base
Opt.
Base
Opt.
Base
Opt.
Base
Opt.
Base
Opt.
Claude-Sonnet-4.5
66.67
77.78
44.44
33.33
77.78
88.89
40.00
66.67
44.44
66.67
83.33
83.33
59.44
69.44
5
GPT-5.1
44.44
77.78
11.11
22.22
66.67
66.67
40.00
53.33
44.44
55.56
100.00
83.33
51.11
59.81
5
Gemini3-Pro
66.67
55.56
22.22
44.44
100.00
88.89
40.00
46.67
22.22
44.44
100.00
100.00
58.52
63.33
4
Grok-4.1
44.44
44.44
33.33
22.22
55.56
44.44
33.33
40.00
77.78
66.67
100.00
100.00
57.41
52.96
3
Appendix
Table 10: Ablation study on Multiple Choice Questions. Performance comparison on the 57-sample MCQ development set. Base denotes the Base System Prompt and Opt. denotes the Optimized System Prompt. Avg. represents the average accuracy across all six tasks. No. Task Wins indicates the number of tasks where the optimized prompt achieved equal or higher accuracy than the base prompt. Bold formatting signifies that the optimized prompt achieved performance parity or improvement over the base prompt.
Task
BCQ
MCQ
Enhancer and Promoter Identification
51.40
25.80
Splice Site Identification
52.00
24.00
Taxonomic Classification
50.80
28.20
Histone Mark Prediction
49.60
23.00
TFBS Prediction
49.20
22.40
TF Motif Prediction
54.00
28.00
Appendix
Table 11: Empirical random baseline accuracy (%) across different tasks in GenomeQA.
Figure 9: Case Study. Examples of failure modes in GenomeQA along with input details and model responses. Green: Ground truth labels, specific input characteristics provided by the benchmark. Red: Incorrect reasoning, or fabricated evidence generated by the model.
The genome holds the blueprint that governs the biological properties of the cell. Consequently, advancing our knowledge of genomic function is crucial both for a broader understanding of biology and for continued biomedical advances. The success of large language models on natural language and protein sequences has motivated similar efforts on genomic data. However, standard genomic language models (gLMs) often require extremely large computational resources and still fall behind traditional methods on some downstream tasks. Recently, MSA-based pretraining has been proposed as an efficient alternative, but existing models are limited to short input contexts, restricting their use to short-range tasks, such as variant effect prediction. In this work, we present RAGenome, the first retrieval-based gLM that scales pretraining to longer contexts (100× longer than existing MSA-based gLMs), allowing it to capture both across-species evolutionary relationships and within-species longer-range interactions. Trained on whole-genome alignments from 100 vertebrates, RAGenome substantially improves the long-range capabilities of MSA-based gLMs, raising gene finding performance from 0.45 to 0.60, while remaining competitive on purely evolutionary-based tasks like prioritizing pathogenic variants. RAGenome provides competitive gLM performance at a fraction of the training cost, unifying evolutionary modeling and long-range capabilities within a single, flexible, scalable framework. Code is available at https://github.com/PanosAntoniadis/RAGenome.
Frederikke Isa Marin, Panagiotis Antoniadis, Dionysia Danai Brilli +5
University of Copenhagen · Novo Nordisk A/S · Technical University of Denmark
Multi-omics sequences contain complex biological patterns, yet deciphering their mechanisms for automated scientific discovery remains challenging. As large language models (LLMs) interpret these sequences, evaluating both predictions and scientific reasoning is critical. However, existing benchmarks for multi-omics sequence tasks rely on classification and regression metrics, neglecting whether models grasp the underlying biological evidence. We introduce OmicsBench, the first reasoning benchmark for multi-omics sequences, comprising 1,160 expert-validated questions across six tasks spanning DNA regulation, RNA processing, and protein function. OmicsBench requires traceable evidence chains, evaluated using instance-specific rubrics developed with domain experts. Evaluating 17 LLMs reveals an inverse relationship: while scientific LLMs outperform general-purpose LLMs in sequence classification accuracy, they fail to provide valid evidence to support their predictions. One plausible interpretation is shortcut learning: specialized models may rely on statistical patterns rather than the biological mechanisms needed for scientific discovery. Motivated by this finding, we introduce tool-augmented on-policy distillation (TA-OPD), a post-training method to align sequence prediction with evidence-grounded biological reasoning. Across five Qwen3.5 models spanning 0.8B to 27B parameters, TA-OPD consistently strengthens biological evidence grounding while improving predictive performance on most tasks. These gains persist across model scales, indicating that stronger sequence reasoning does not arise solely from increased model capacity, but can be improved through evidence-aware training. Together, OmicsBench and TA-OPD provide a framework for diagnosing reasoning failures in multi-omics LLMs and a path toward models whose predictions are better grounded in biologically meaningful evidence.
Jie Ying, Zhefan Wang, Zihong Chen +11
Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory · Yazhouwan National Laboratory · Shanghai Innovation Institute +2
Bacteriophages, often referred to as the dark matter of the biosphere, play a critical role in regulating microbial ecosystems and in antibiotic alternatives. Thus, accurate interpretation of their genomes holds significant scientific and practical value. While general-purpose Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at understanding biological texts, their ability to directly interpret raw nucleotide sequences and perform biological reasoning remains underexplored. To address this, we introduce PhageBench, the first benchmark designed to evaluate phage genome understanding by mirroring the workflow of bioinformatics experts. The dataset contains 5,600 high-quality samples covering five core tasks across three stages: Screening, Quality Control, and Phenotype Annotation. Our evaluation of eight LLMs reveals that general-purpose reasoning models significantly outperform random baselines in phage contig identification and host prediction, demonstrating promising potential for genomic understanding. However, they exhibit significant limitations in complex reasoning tasks involving long-range dependencies and fine-grained functional localization. These findings highlight the necessity of developing next-generation models with enhanced reasoning capabilities for biological sequences.
Yusen Hou, Weicai Long, Haitao Hu +3
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou)