BioResearcher: Scenario-Guided Multi-Agent for Translational Medicine

A working citation looks like proof -- but the fact that a link resolves does not mean the cited paper supports the claim. I find that current agentic models rarely fabricate citations (over $99\%$ resolve), yet roughly $15.9\%$ link to the wrong paper. Existing benchmarks miss this failure mode: when a question has a fixed answer key, a model can reproduce the expected source from that key rather than independently verifying that the source supports the claim. I introduce \textbf{\openbiorq{}}, a retrieval-grounded agentic benchmark of $12{,}553$ unsolved biomedical research questions across $12$ domains that treats open questions as a faithfulness-and-abstention probe. To my knowledge, this is the first biomedical benchmark to combine an agentic setting -- where the model must issue multiple tool calls -- with unsolved questions that have no answer key. Openness is verified against real follow-up evidence rather than a model's parametric knowledge. Difficulty is empirical: I anchor it on questions that three open-weight reference models fail to answer, rather than on subjective hardness labels. On this hardest subset, held-out models from the same lineage as the difficulty anchors solve only ~17%, while three independent frontier agents (Gemini-3-Pro, Opus-4.7, GPT-5.5) span a wide 29-60% range. The benchmark is thus hard, non-saturating (the best agent still leaves ~33-40% unsolved), and discriminating across capability tiers. Beyond difficulty, I observe agentic collapse on the hardest questions, where agents stop using their tools. For the most collapse-prone model, blocking tool access entirely barely changes its score -- so tools stop paying off exactly where they are needed most. A frozen per-question checklist raises inter-judge agreement from Spearman 0.35 to 0.82.

Biomedical researchers increasingly use AI-generated analyses and reports to interpret protein-level signals, but static outputs are often insufficient for research decision-making, where users need to inspect evidence, assess uncertainty, compare mechanisms, and refine hypotheses. We present \textsc{BioInsight}, a multi-agent system that moves from static biomedical report generation to interactive evidence-centered interactive interface generation. Given a disease name, a protein association table, and optional cohort metadata, BioInsight organizes disease-specific evidence through typed intermediate artifacts, including ranked pathways, literature evidence packets, protein-level reasoning notes, citation-grounded reports, dashboard schemas, and rendered interactive interfaces. The system decomposes evidence retrieval from mechanistic reasoning, normalizes citations through deterministic components, and converts the same structured evidence used in the report into an interactive interface. We evaluate BioInsight on standardized biomedical QA, challenging protein-function reasoning, and end-to-end biomedical evidence synthesis. Results show that BioInsight achieves best, and suggest that biomedical AI systems should move beyond text-only and static reports toward provenance-preserving, interactive evidence artifacts.

Large language model agents have shown promise in bioinformatics, but most existing systems focus primarily on producing final answers, treating planning, tool use, and code execution as transient interactions. This design is poorly suited to long-horizon bioinformatics tasks, where conclusions must remain connected to the data, computations, and intermediate evidence that support them. We introduce \textbf{Bioinfoysis}, a multi-agent harness that represents each request as a persistent, artifact-grounded analysis run. Bioinfoysis combines global planning with step-wise, evidence-driven replanning: the planner maintains an executable checklist and revises pending steps using structured handoffs returned after each worker execution. These handoffs bind intermediate results to their responsible agent, checklist step, and plan generation, preventing stale evidence from being silently reused after replanning. A controlled runtime validates generated scripts, tables, and figures before they are used in downstream analysis or reporting, while role-specific context, persistent memory, and governed bioinformatics skills support reliable execution over long analysis trajectories. We evaluate Bioinfoysis on BixBench and two question-answering tracks of LAB-Bench 2. On BixBench, Bioinfoysis achieves state-of-the-art accuracy of 82.4%. Across four underlying language models, Bioinfoysis increases average accuracy from 27.81% to 64.13% on SeqQA2 and from 3.13% to 31.25% on DbQA2. These results demonstrate that reliable bioinformatics automation depends not only on model capability, but also on the harness that governs planning, execution, memory, and evidence flow. We hope that the emergence of Bioinfoysis will play a driving and leading role in the development of the bioinformatics community. Our demo website can be seen in https://report.bioinfoysis.com/.